Get Schedule Metadata

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses error behavior (HTTP status 401/403/404), return format (single JSON object), and the important default for project_id. This significantly exceeds the annotations and provides clear expectations for the agent.

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 well-structured: starts with purpose, then usage, then parameter default, return type, error handling, and API reference. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value, with no redundant filler. The inclusion of endpoint and API path is useful context despite some overlap with schema.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description must explain the return value and error behavior. It clearly states it returns a single JSON object and describes common error payloads. It also covers the default parameter and API details, making it complete for a simple read operation.

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% for project_id, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the crucial default behavior: 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' which is not in the schema. This extra semantics merits a 4.

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 the tool returns metadata about the project's Schedule, including integration configuration. This is a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like update_schedule_metadata (update vs. read) and list_schedule_imports (imports vs. metadata). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast these alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides direct usage guidance: 'Use this when you already know which schedule metadata you want and need its full field set.' It also explains the parameter default and failure modes, giving context for when calling this tool is appropriate. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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