List Action Plans

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

It states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and describes pagination ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain') and error behavior ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status'). It also reveals the project_id default from procore_set_config. These details go beyond the annotations, which only declare readOnly/destructive hints.

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?

Five sentences, each conveying distinct information: purpose, use case, default, return/pagination, safety, errors, required param, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core 'List of all Action Plans' statement and has no filler.

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?

For a 12-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers return type (JSON array), pagination, error scenarios, default value behavior, and the endpoint path. It also mentions the primary use case (ID lookup) and the read-only nature, giving an agent everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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 documents all 12 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the default behavior for project_id ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted') and confirms that page/per_page control pagination, which is a slight addition to the schema's per-parameter notes.

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 Action Plans' which names the verb (list), resource (Action Plans), and scope (all). It further clarifies the purpose with 'Use this to discover action plans or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' distinguishing it from action plan template 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?

It explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use this to discover action plans or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' However, it doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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