List Action Plan Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds beyond annotations: project_id defaults to procore_set_config, pagination via page/per_page with remaining-pages reporting, return format, and detailed error payload behavior (401/403/404).

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose, use case, default behavior, return type, safety, errors, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or fluff.

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?

This is a list tool with 26 parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the discovery use case, project_id default, JSON array return, pagination, read-only safety, error statuses, required parameters, and API endpoint, making it complete for an agent to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by explaining project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config and that page/per_page control pagination with the response reporting remaining pages, which is not in the schema.

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 states 'Returns all Action Plan Items for a given Project,' clearly identifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'Action Plan Items' and by mentioning its role in discovering items or looking up IDs before other tools.

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 clear context with 'Use this to discover action plan items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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