Get Person Assignments

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination behavior, response format (JSON array, pages remaining), error payloads of the HTTP status, common error codes (401, 403, 404), and default handling for company_id. The read-only statement is redundant with annotations, but the rest adds substantial 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?

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers usage, defaults, pagination, safety, error handling, required parameters, and API reference in an organized manner. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, how to use it, prerequisites, pagination, error behavior, and the underlying API endpoint. It provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining company_id's default from procore_set_config, the prerequisite for person_id (must be an existing parent record), and how page/per_page control pagination. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 given company and person. It also explains its use for discovering assignments or looking up an assignment ID for subsequent calls, which distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like get_company_assignments.

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 clear usage context: use it to discover person assignments or to look up an ID before calling another tool. It also advises resolving person_id with a 'matching list tool first', though it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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