List Actions

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination behavior ('response reports how many pages remain'), default project_id from procore_set_config, and specific error statuses (401, 403, 404). This significantly exceeds the annotation-level information and helps predict tool behavior.

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 information-dense and well-structured: it leads with the core function, then usage, defaults, return format, safety, errors, and API reference. Each sentence contributes useful context, though a few parts (e.g., the API category line) could be trimmed without loss.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the return format (JSON array) and pagination reporting. It also addresses error handling and default behavior, which combined with the strong schema and annotations gives an agent sufficient context to 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the project_id default behavior, pagination control via page/per_page, and incident_id scoping. This adds value beyond the baseline of 3.

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 function: 'Returns a paginated list of incident actions for the specified project.' It also mentions the optional scoping to a single incident, distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_incidents. The API endpoint and domain further disambiguate the tool's purpose.

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?

Usage context is explicit: 'Use this to discover actions or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also explains the project_id default and optional incident_id, providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for specific scenarios, so it falls 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.