Get The Specifications User Permissions

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config, describes the return format as a single JSON object, and enumerates common HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. The read-only note aligns with the annotations, and no contradictions are present.

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 five sentences and front-loads the purpose before moving to usage, defaults, return type, and error handling. It is compact and each sentence contributes information, though it could be trimmed by removing the redundant 'Required parameters' line already present in the 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return format ('single JSON object') and error behavior. However, it fails to clarify the role of pagination/filter parameters (page, sort, per_page, filters__query) or reconcile why a 'single' object endpoint would support them. This inconsistency leaves a notable gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool with those optional parameters.

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 six parameters. The description adds meaning by noting that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, which is not evident from the schema. It does not elaborate on the query parameters, but the schema's descriptions suffice, making this a solid baseline-plus score.

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 action ('Retrieves a single specifications user permission') and the scope ('in the specified Procore project'). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'update_the_specifications_user_permissions' by implying read-only access. However, the mention of 'single' conflicts with the schema's pagination/filter parameters, creating minor ambiguity about whether it returns one object or a list.

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 condition: 'Use this when you already know which specifications user permission you want and need its full field set.' This implies it is for targeted retrieval rather than listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is helpful for selecting between read and update tools.

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