Get Asset Naming Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining defaulting behavior (company_id and project_id from procore_set_config) and detailing common error payloads with 401, 403, and 404 statuses, enriching the agent's understanding of failure modes.

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 well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and then logically covering usage, defaults, return type, safety, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the length is slightly dense due to the inclusion of multiple behavioral details.

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?

For a read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the return format ('single JSON object'), default behavior, error semantics, and API endpoint. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though the structure of the returned JSON is not described.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted, which is not present in the schema, and it restates the required parameters for emphasis.

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 clearly states the tool returns all fields available for the naming standard expression builder, listing specific categories (procore default naming fields, parent_asset_id, custom fields). It is specific about the resource and operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_asset_naming_fields_company, relying on the tool name for scope distinction.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this when you already know which asset naming field you want and need its full field set.' It implies a specific scenario and gives enough guidance for an agent to decide when to call it, though it does not mention alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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