Get Workflow Data

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' reinforces this rather than adding new information. However, it goes beyond annotations by disclosing failure modes (401/403/404), the default for project_id from procore_set_config, and the return format (a single JSON object).

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 longer than strictly necessary but every sentence carries value: purpose, usage context, default behavior, return type, error semantics, and endpoint reference. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition beyond the required-parameter note.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return type (single JSON object), failure modes with common HTTP statuses, and the default behavior for project_id. It also references the exact API endpoint and path, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful behavior that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, although this conflicts slightly with the schema's 'required' field. It also explicitly lists required parameters, which is redundant but harmless.

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 'attributes related to submittal workflow state' and uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a concrete resource. It distinguishes from sibling workflow tools by focusing on submittals and includes the exact endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when you already know which workflow data you want and need its full field set' and instructs to resolve the parent record with the matching list tool first. While it doesn't name a specific alternative tool, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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