List Action Plan Parties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by explaining the response shape (JSON array), pagination controls and page-remaining indicator, and error payload details including common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). These are not present in the annotations and help the agent understand side effects and failure modes.

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 a single sentence but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, config default, return type, pagination, read-only guarantee, error codes, and API endpoint. It is well-structured, starting with the core function and then progressively adding operational details. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 reasonably covers return format (JSON array), pagination behavior, and error conditions. It also includes the Procore API section and endpoint URL, which helps confirm the scope. It does not describe the structure of each party object, which would be useful but is not essential for selecting or invoking the tool 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful nuance: project_id defaults to procore_set_config's value when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also mentions page/per_page control pagination, but that is already documented in the schema. No other parameter-level insights are added.

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 opens with 'List of all project Action Plan Parties' — a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the tool as a discovery mechanism: 'Use this to discover action plan parties or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This distinguishes it from other list tools by naming the exact entity and its intended role, though not explicitly naming sibling 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 gives explicit use cases: discover parties or look up an ID before another tool call. It also explains the project_id default behavior with procore_set_config, which is important configuration context. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or provide named alternatives, so it falls short of the 5 threshold.

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