Get Managed Equipment Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the endpoint and pagination parameters but does not clarify the actual return format beyond saying it returns a JSON array. The inaccurate suggestion that it fetches incident details introduces potential confusion.

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 relatively short but includes redundant information like 'Procore API: Project Management > Incidents' and the full endpoint URL, which could be omitted. The misleading sentence about fetching incident details inefficiently uses space. A more focused and accurate description would be more concise.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the JSON array contains. It vaguely says 'available filter values for Incidents' but given the tool name, it should clarify that these are filter values for managed equipment to filter environmental records. The lack of precise return structure leaves the agent uncertain.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'Required parameters: project_id' but adds no additional semantic nuance beyond the schema's own descriptions. The pagination parameters (page, per_page) are already documented in the schema, so the description provides no extra value.

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 begins by stating 'Returns managed equipment in use for filtering environmental records,' which aligns with the tool name and endpoint. However, it then incorrectly states 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier,' which contradicts the tool's actual function as a filter options endpoint. This inconsistency 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple versioned get_managed_equipment_filter_options tools (v1_0, v1_0_2, v1_0_4) and other filter options tools, but no context is given for choosing this one. The misleading instruction about fetching incident details further confuses usage.

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