Get All Properties For Materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces read-only and adds valuable error-handling details (401/403/404) and default parameter behavior. No contradiction with annotations, though the inconsistent return description ('list' vs 'single JSON object') reduces clarity.

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 contains useful details (endpoint, defaults, error mappings) but also redundancy (required parameters, read-only) and contradictory statements. It is not particularly concise and could be tightened to avoid confusion.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must clarify the response shape. It says 'list of custom property definitions' but then 'single JSON object describing the property', leaving return structure ambiguous. Error handling and defaults are good, but the core response format and selection criteria are unclear.

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 description adds useful default behavior for company_id and project_id (fallback to procore_set_config). However, it does not mention the view parameter at all, and the schema's own view description is inconsistent with its enum values ('normal'/'extended' vs 'Normal'/'Keys'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3.

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 the list of custom property definitions for materials, which is a specific verb+resource. However, later sentences say 'Returns a single JSON object describing the property' and 'Use this when you already know which property you want', which contradicts the plural list and muddles whether this is a list-all or single-property tool.

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 only usage guidance is 'Use this when you already know which property you want and need its full field set', which is confusing given the tool name and first sentence imply it returns all properties. No alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided, and the defaults/error details are behavioral rather than selection guidance.

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