Get A Groups Projects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark it read-only, but the description goes further by disclosing error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses, return format (JSON array), and pagination. This is valuable context beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph covering purpose, usage, defaults, return, errors, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each sentence contributes information, though it could be better structured with bullet points.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, but the description provides return type ('JSON array of groups projects'), pagination behavior, and error handling. It also describes prerequisites and defaults. It doesn't detail the fields of the returned projects, but the schema covers input, and the absence of output schema is mitigated by the array description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all 13 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for key parameters: company_id defaults to procore_set_config value and group_id must resolve to an existing parent. It also explains page/per_page control pagination. This is extra context beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Get the projects for a given company ID and group ID,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It also states a specific use case (discovering group projects or looking up an ID) that differentiates it from company-level project list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to discover groups projects or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also gives a prerequisite (resolve group_id with a list tool first) and notes company_id defaults to config. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, so not a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.