List Action Plan References

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: return format (JSON array), pagination behavior (page/per_page, pages remaining), error payloads with specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and the default project_id behavior. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 densely packed with useful information in a well-ordered sequence: purpose, usage, default parameter, return format, pagination, read-only assurance, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, pagination, error handling) and the lack of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it behaves, what to expect in the response, and potential failure modes. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics by explaining project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and notes pagination parameters, which the schema does not mention. It doesn't detail every parameter but enhances the understanding of key ones.

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 'List of all Action Plan References' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create, show, delete, and recycled variants. It further clarifies the purpose as a discovery tool for looking up IDs before calling 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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this to discover action plan references or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a full 5.

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