Get My Open Items Statistics

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', reinforcing the readOnlyHint. It goes beyond annotations by detailing error responses: 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401...403...404', which is valuable operational context.

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?

At roughly 100 words, the description is informative but includes some redundancy, such as repeating the required parameter and read-only status already present in annotations/schema. The structure is clear with the endpoint information at the end, and there is no fluff.

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 a simple request shape (one required and one optional parameter) and strong annotations, so the description doesn't need to over-explain. It covers usage context, return type, and failure modes, but since there is no output schema, it leaves the exact contents of the 'single JSON object' unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions and enum values (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'Required parameters: project_id' and does not explain how tool_name affects the result beyond what the schema already says.

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 opens with 'Return open items statistics for a project (current user)', a specific verb+resource that clearly states the action. It further clarifies it returns a single JSON object for a known 'my open items statistic', distinguishing it from the sibling get_open_items_statistics which likely lists all items.

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 phrase 'Use this when you already know which my open items statistic you want and need its full field set' provides a clear usage condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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