Get Project Assignments

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination behavior (page/per_page, pages remaining), default-value behavior for company_id/project_id, error payload details with HTTP status codes (401/403/404), and an explicit 'Read-only' statement consistent with annotations. This substantially enriches the agent's runtime expectations.

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 compact yet information-dense: purpose, usage, defaults, pagination, safety, errors, required parameters, and API reference all appear in a logical flow. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 endpoint with rich schema coverage, the description covers return format (JSON array), pagination, errors, defaults, and required parameters. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the fields of each assignment object (beyond suggesting an id), but given the stated use case of discovering assignments and looking up ids, this is acceptable.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted, and identifies dayRange/start_day as required for the query. This extra context helps the agent invoke the tool without redundant parameter passes.

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 'Returns the Resource Planning Assignment data for the given company and project,' identifying the specific resource, scope, and action. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_assignments or get_person_assignments, which operate at different scopes.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to discover project assignments or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the company+project scope implies when this tool is appropriate versus broader assignment tools.

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