Get Project Naming Standard Rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read-only' statement adds no new value. It does add useful behavioral context: error payload details with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), ordering by modified date, and inclusion of inactive rules. However, the contradictory 'all rules' vs 'single JSON object' return description undermines the credibility of the behavioral disclosure.

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 unnecessarily long and contains redundant information (e.g., 'Read-only — it changes nothing' duplicates annotations). It also includes internal contradictions about the return type and parameter requirements, making it less concise and harder to parse than it should be. The endpoint details and API section add bulk without clarifying core usage.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clearly explain the return value. Instead, it inconsistently says 'Returns all naming standard rules' and 'Returns a single JSON object describing the project naming standard rule,' leaving the agent uncertain about whether the result is a list or a single object. No field details or pagination behavior are provided, so the description is incomplete for a rule-listing tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description mostly restates required parameters, but it also claims 'company_id and project_id default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted.' This directly contradicts the schema's 'required' designation for these fields, making the guidance misleading rather than additive.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool returns all naming standard rules at the project level, including specific rule categories and ordering. However, this is contradicted by later statements: 'Use this when you already know which project naming standard rule you want' and 'Returns a single JSON object describing the project naming standard rule,' which suggest a singular fetch. This internal inconsistency muddles the intended purpose.

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 a usage scenario ('when you already know which project naming standard rule you want and need its full field set') and mentions default parameter behavior via procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_company_naming_standard_rules or create/update/delete rule tools, and the claim that required parameters can be omitted is confusing and potentially misleading for an agent.

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