Get All Properties For Issuing

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

The description explicitly confirms read-only behavior, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, and goes beyond annotations by detailing common failure modes (401, 403, 404) and default parameter values. This added context helps an agent anticipate errors and auth requirements without contradicting the structured metadata.

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 redundancies, such as repeating required parameters already present in the schema. The contradictory list vs. single-object phrasing adds confusion. The endpoint and error code details are valuable, but the text could be more concise and better organized.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides solid context: API version, full endpoint path, resource category, read-only confirmation, parameter defaults, and expected failure statuses. It falls short by not clarifying whether the response is a list or an object and omitting pagination details, but remains largely complete for a straightforward GET tool.

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 documentation covers 100% of parameters, meeting the baseline. The description adds useful info about company_id and project_id defaulting to procore_set_config values. However, the schema's view parameter is internally inconsistent (enum 'Normal'/'Keys' vs description mentioning 'normal'/'extended'), and the description does not help resolve this confusion.

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 clearly states the tool returns a list of custom property definitions for direct issues, identifying the resource and action. However, it later says 'Returns a single JSON object describing the property,' contradicting the list phrasing and making the actual return type ambiguous. It also does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_all_properties_project.

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?

Provides a 'when to use' statement: 'Use this when you already know which property you want and need its full field set.' It also explains default behavior for company_id and project_id. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use it or which alternative sibling tool might be more appropriate, leaving the selection criteria incomplete.

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