Get Project Incidents Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds meaningful context: distribution list membership is limited to users with Read-level access, project_id falls back to procore_set_config, and failures map to HTTP status codes. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs useful context into a moderate length. It includes API category and endpoint for reference, but each sentence contributes behavioral or usage information. Slightly longer than the minimum, but not padded.

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 single-parameter read-only fetch with strong annotations, this is complete: it specifies return type (single JSON object), contents (privacy defaults + distribution list members), default parameter behavior, and error semantics. No output schema exists, but the description compensates well.

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 the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the project_id default behavior from procore_set_config and labels it as a URL path parameter. However, this conflicts slightly with the schema marking project_id as required, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the project's Incidents tool configuration including privacy defaults and default distribution list members.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from incident management siblings by focusing on configuration, and the 'full field set' note adds further precision.

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?

'Use this when you already know which project incidents configuration you want and need its full field set' gives an explicit trigger condition. It also explains default project_id behavior and common failure statuses, but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state 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.