Get Complete Layer Structure

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the retrieve-or-create behavior, the defaults for company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, and the common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). The annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, and the description is consistent with these flags, adding error handling and operational details.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence contributes useful information (defaults, error behavior, required params, endpoint), though the 'Required parameters' list repeats schema information and the phrase 'Acts on the complete layer structure and returns Procore's response' is somewhat redundant.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key operational details like defaults and errors, but leaves significant gaps: it does not explain when creation occurs versus retrieval, nor the meaning of include_groups and sub_context_type fields. The absence of output schema information also limits the agent's ability to anticipate the response shape, though the description does state it returns Procore's raw response.

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 with generic descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values and by framing context_type in the hierarchy (contexts -> layers -> groups). However, it does not clarify the roles of include_groups, sub_context_type, or sub_context_type_id beyond what the schema states.

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) by context type') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_layers, get_groups, and get_contexts by targeting the complete hierarchy. However, the dual 'Retrieve or create' behavior is ambiguous and the tool name (get_complete_layer_structure) implies a read-only operation, creating some confusion.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_layers, get_groups, or get_or_create_context_with_hierarchy. It mentions default values for company_id/project_id and lists required parameters, but does not explain the decision context for choosing this tool over more specific sibling tools.

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