Get Managed Equipment Filter Options

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds minimal value: it states it returns a JSON array of available filter values. However, the contradictory second sentence introduces confusion about what the tool actually does, reducing 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 four sentences but contains a distracting and incorrect sentence (the second one). This wastes space and misleads. More concise and accurate wording is needed.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the available filter values represent (e.g., list of managed equipment names/IDs). It only says 'available filter values for Incidents,' which is vague. The contradictory sentence further detracts from completeness.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description only reiterates that project_id is required, adding no additional semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 contains a contradictory second sentence: 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier.' This is misleading and conflicts with the tool's actual purpose of returning filter options for managed equipment. The first and third sentences partially clarify the purpose, but the inconsistency severely undermines 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the Procore API endpoint and path, but does not differentiate from other filter options tools (many exist as siblings). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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