Get Contexts

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 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable behavioral context about error responses (401/403/404) and default parameter values. However, the contradictory return description ('Returns a single JSON object' vs 'Returns all contexts') creates confusion about the actual output shape, diminishing transparency.

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 reasonably sized and covers multiple aspects (behavior, usage, defaults, errors, endpoint). However, it contains redundancy and contradiction: the 'single JSON object' statement conflicts with 'Returns all contexts,' and the opening is not as crisp as it could be. Some sentences could be reorganized for better flow.

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 provides helpful contextual details such as error status meanings, default parameter sources, and the API endpoint. However, it fails to clearly explain the return structure (single vs. multiple contexts), pagination semantics beyond schema descriptions, or what fields are included. Without an output schema, this gap is noticeable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by stating that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted, and clarifies they are required. This goes beyond the schema's own property descriptions, providing practical guidance for parameter usage.

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 clear action: 'Returns all contexts with pagination and filtering.' However, the subsequent sentences confuse the purpose: 'Use this when you already know which context you want and need its full field set' and 'Returns a single JSON object describing the context' contradict the plural list behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like get_context_by_id by being plural, but the mixed signals undermine clarity.

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 offers a usage scenario: 'Use this when you already know which context you want and need its full field set,' but for a list endpoint this is misleading. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_context_by_id for single-context retrieval or get_company_level_contexts for company-level scoping. The mention of default values from procore_set_config provides useful context for when parameters are omitted.

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