Get Project'S Assignment History Data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description supports by stating it fetches data and returns a JSON object. The description does not add significant behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not contradict them.

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 fairly concise but includes a potentially confusing second sentence that may mislead or repeat intent. The structure is logical but could be improved by removing ambiguity and front-loading key usage context.

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 description mentions the source API (Procore) and endpoint, which is helpful. However, it does not explain pagination, response structure, or how this tool differs from similar ones like get_persons_assignment_history_data. Given schema coverage is high, completeness is adequate but not excellent.

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 schema already describes each parameter (e.g., boolean flags to include fields). The description only lists required parameters, providing no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it fetches assignment history for a specific Project. However, the second sentence introduces ambiguity by referencing 'fetch the full details of a specific Resource Planning records by its identifier,' which could confuse whether this tool retrieves a single record or history. Overall, the primary purpose is clear.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_persons_assignment_history_data. It mentions required parameters but lacks explicit context on use cases or exclusions. The second sentence vaguely suggests a use case but is insufficient.

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