Get All Configurable Columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It goes beyond annotations by disclosing error behavior (401/403/404 statuses) and defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id (procore_set_config), which is valuable contextual information.

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 well-structured with the purpose first, followed by usage, defaults, return type, read-only status, error handling, and API reference. It is somewhat dense and includes slight redundancy ('Read-only' repeating annotations) and ambiguity about the return format, but each sentence contributes information without excessive verbosity.

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 description covers many aspects: purpose, usage scenario, required parameters, defaults, read-only behavior, error payloads, and the underlying API endpoint. However, it lacks a clear statement of the response structure (list vs. single object) and does not describe what the configurable column objects contain, which is significant given there is no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail beyond stating which are required (company_id, project_id), which is already in the schema. The schema's 'view' parameter has a description that contradicts its enum values, but that is a schema issue, not addressed by the description.

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 first sentence states the tool returns a list of configurable columns for transfer records, which is specific. However, the second sentence ('Use this when you already know which configurable column you want') and the later claim ('Returns a single JSON object describing the configurable column') introduce ambiguity about whether the endpoint returns all columns or a single one, muddling the purpose.

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 a usage scenario: 'Use this when you already know which configurable column you want and need its full field set.' It also implies the scope is transfer records. However, it does not mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, and the given use case conflicts with the 'all columns' claim.

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