Get Filing Types

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds pagination behavior and required parameters. However, it misstates the return type as 'Incidents' instead of 'filing types', reducing reliability.

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 somewhat bloated with unnecessary details (API endpoint, Procore category) and contains contradictory information about incidents. Front-loading is adequate but the inaccuracies hurt conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so description must explain return values. It mentions 'objects containing the display label and server value' and pagination metadata, but the incorrect mention of incidents undermines completeness. The description leaves out details like response structure keys.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates that company_id is required and explains page/per_page for pagination, adding minimal value beyond the schema.

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 it returns display label and server value of filing types for injuries, which is clear. However, it also says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier' and 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Incidents', which incorrectly refers to incidents instead of filing types, causing 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 mentions using it when creating or updating injuries, providing some usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, so guidance is weak.

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