List All Classification

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error handling (401/403/404), and the default for company_id. While annotations cover read-only and idempotency, the description elaborates on return format 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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and usage. It is slightly redundant (e.g., 'Read-only' repeats annotation, 'Required parameters: company_id' repeats schema), but each sentence contributes useful context. Overall it is efficiently written.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers return format, pagination, error handling, defaults, and API context. It could explain what fields are in the 'details' but otherwise satisfies the needs of an AI agent for selection and invocation.

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 value by explaining company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that page/per_page control pagination. It does not elaborate on serializer_view beyond the schema enum, but this is sufficient.

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 tool returns a list of Classifications with details for a specified company, using a specific verb ('Return a list') and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'list_all_classifications' (plural), so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear use cases: discover classifications or look up an id before calling another tool. It also notes the tool is read-only, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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