Get Group Assignments

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states the operation is read-only, describes error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), explains pagination with 'page and per_page' and page-remain reporting, and discloses the default behavior for company_id. These details significantly enhance transparency beyond the structured 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 detailed and well-structured, leading with the main purpose and following with usage context, behavior, and API reference. It is somewhat long, including the full endpoint and API category, but each sentence earns its place by adding useful information. A slight deduction for verbosity compared to ideal 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most critical aspects: return type (JSON array), pagination, error handling, required parameters, defaults, and API endpoint. However, it does not describe the fields or structure of a group assignment object, which would be helpful since no output schema is present. This is a minor gap, so 4.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining company_id defaults to procore_set_config, group_id must be resolved via a list tool, and explicitly lists required parameters. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, which already document each parameter's type and format, so a 4 is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool returns Resource Planning Assignment data for a specific company and group, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_company_assignments and get_person_assignments by scoping to group and company, and also mentions the use case of discovering assignments or looking up an id.

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 explicit use cases ('Use this to discover group assignments or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it') and prerequisites (group_id must match an existing parent record, company_id defaults from procore_set_config). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to sibling assignment tools, so it falls 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.