Get Schedule Import Processing State

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the tool is read-only, explains error payloads and common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and notes the default behavior for project_id from procore_set_config. These details enhance transparency without contradicting 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 slightly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., both the first sentence and the return type sentence convey the core purpose), but it is well-structured and front-loaded with the main intent. Every additional sentence adds useful context, justifying its length.

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 tool, the description is comprehensive: it covers purpose, usage timing, default parameter behavior, return shape, safety, error handling, and API endpoint. It lacks details about the output fields, but this is not critical for tool selection given the simple nature of the 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?

The schema describes project_id as a URL path parameter with full coverage. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not present in the schema. This compensates for the schema's limited description and provides practical guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('schedule import processing state'), clearly distinguishing it from the related sibling tools like list_schedule_imports or get_import_status. It also states the tool's core function of checking whether processing is currently occurring, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this when you already know which schedule import processing state you want and need its full field set.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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