Get Asset Naming Fields

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and details error payload behavior (401/403/404), plus the default company_id behavior from procore_set_config. This is rich, actionable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 about five sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, when to use, default behavior, return format, error handling, and endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no filler.

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 purpose, scope, usage timing, return type, error handling, required parameter, and API endpoint. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's brief characterization of the returned object ('single JSON object describing the asset naming field'). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the practical default for company_id ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted'), which aids correct invocation. Accept-Language is left to the schema, which is sufficient.

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 description opens with a specific verb and clearly scopes the resource: 'Returns all fields available for the naming standard expression builder, including procore default naming fields, parent_asset_id, and eligible custom fields from all fieldsets.' This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from asset CRUD or project-scoped siblings.

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 an explicit when-to-use cue: 'Use this when you already know which asset naming field you want and need its full field set.' It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to guide selection, and the company_id default (procore_set_config) adds practical context.

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