Get All Estimating Projects

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

The description adds positive behavioral context: read-only safety, error status codes, and the company_id default to procore_set_config. However, it misrepresents the return value as 'a single JSON object' despite pagination parameters suggesting a list. This false output disclosure undermines trust, so despite good supplementary details, the transparency score is low.

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 that includes useful details (endpoint, error codes) but repeats contradictions ('single estimating project', 'single JSON object') and includes grammatical errors. It could be much shorter and clearer.

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 must clarify that this returns a paginated collection of estimating projects, but instead falsely states it returns a single object. This is the critical missing information and makes the tool effectively unusable for an agent without further guesswork.

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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the company_id default behavior, but contradicts the schema's required array by saying 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted'. It also doesn't clarify that page/per_page control pagination of a collection, which is the core misunderstanding.

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 tool name and schema (with page/per_page pagination) clearly indicate a list operation, but the description claims it 'Retrieves an single estimating project' and 'Returns a single JSON object' — a direct contradiction. The usage cue 'when you already know which estimating project you want' further suggests a show-by-id tool, but the schema has no project id parameter. This is misleading.

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 offers one usage guideline ('Use this when you already know which estimating project you want'), but that guidance is inconsistent with the tool's actual get-all behavior and pagination parameters. It also fails to distinguish from sibling tools like get_estimating_project_data_by_procore_project_id or retrieve_a_project_proposal_by_id.

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