Get Current Company Assignments

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the return format (JSON array), pagination controls (page/per_page and remaining pages reporting), and failure modes with common HTTP status codes. It also reinforces the read-only nature. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, parameter behavior, and error handling. Every sentence adds value—there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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 simple GET tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, return format, pagination, default parameter behavior, and failure modes. The sibling context is also handled by explicitly saying 'current company assignments,' distinguishing it from other assignment-related tools.

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 the important default behavior for company_id (falls back to procore_set_config value) and clarifies that pagination is controlled by page and per_page, and that the response reports pages remaining. This adds meaning beyond the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current Resource Planning Assignment data for the given company'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'current' company assignments and explaining its use for discovering assignments or looking up an id before calling another tool.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover current company assignments or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also explains the company_id default behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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