Get All Company Groups

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' describes the return format as a JSON array with pagination ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), and details error payload structure with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also documents the company_id default from procore_set_config, which is not in the annotations.

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 about 120 words but every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, use case, default, return format, read-only nature, error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-organized, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently compensates by explaining the return format (JSON array) and pagination behavior. It also covers error scenarios and the relevant API section. It does not list the individual fields of a group object (e.g., id, name), but for a discovery tool that primarily needs IDs, this is adequate.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (company_id, page, per_page), including defaults and formats. The description adds the meaningful nuance that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, which is valuable but slightly conflicts with the schema's required marking. However, it adds no further detail on page/per_page beyond what the schema gives.

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 clearly states 'Gets all Groups in a given Company' — a specific verb ('Gets all') plus a specific resource ('Groups in a given Company'). It also explicitly explains its intended use ('discover company groups or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), which distinguishes it from sibling group-related tools like get_a_single_group or get_all_people_belonging_to_a_group.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to discover company groups or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, and the mention of looking up IDs before other calls implies a preparatory role. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the context is strong.

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