Get Company-Level Layer Structure

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses error handling ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve') and a default behavior for company_id. It also clarifies that it acts on the company-level layer structure and returns Procore's response, which is useful operational context.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and covers defaults, error handling, required parameters, and the API endpoint. Each sentence contributes unique information, though the density could be slightly reduced.

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, defaults, error codes, and endpoint, but with no output schema it does not explain the success response structure. It also does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool from the many related layer/group/context siblings. For a 6-parameter tool, this is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 parameter context by noting company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and listing required parameters. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of context_type or sub_context_type beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 states a specific action: 'Retrieve or create the complete hierarchy (contexts -> layers -> groups) for a company-level document.' It clearly identifies the resource (company-level layer structure) and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the complete hierarchy and the POST endpoint for layer_structure.

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 context such as company_id defaulting to the value set by procore_set_config and identifies required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related tools like get_company_level_layers or get_or_create_company_level_context_with_hierarchy. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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