Get All Materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: error payload shapes with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), config default behavior, and the explicit statement that it changes nothing. No contradiction with 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 longer than needed and contains contradictory/redundant sentences: 'Returns a single JSON object' directly conflicts with 'paginated list,' and 'Read-only — it changes nothing' restates annotations. It also includes endpoint details that are not essential for tool selection, making it less concise.

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 provides useful context (error handling, config defaults, API location) but lacks explanation of pagination behavior and contradicts itself on the return type. With 13 parameters and no output schema, more clarity about the list response structure would improve completeness, but the schema covers the parameters adequately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by noting that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted and explicitly listing them as required. It does not rehash filter syntax, but the schema already handles those details.

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 opening sentence clearly states 'Returns a paginated list of materials for the project', but the description then contradicts itself by saying 'Use this when you already know which material you want' and 'Returns a single JSON object describing the material.' This muddles whether the tool lists all materials or fetches one, reducing clarity despite the specific verb and resource.

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 'Use this when you already know which material you want and need its full field set,' which is misleading for a list endpoint, and it does not name any alternative tools like show_material or list_materials. It does mention config defaults but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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