List All Classifications

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds plain-language confirmation: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It also discloses failure behavior with specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and explains pagination/remaining-pages reporting, providing substantial extra context about the tool's runtime 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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, use case, default config, response format, read-only note, failure modes, required parameters, and API endpoint. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the essential dimensions for a simple list tool: what it returns, when to use it, default configuration, pagination behavior, safety, error patterns, and API reference. However, it lacks detail about the fields inside each classification object (e.g., the exact id field name), which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Still, it is largely complete for invoking the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted (not in the schema), and clarifies that page and per_page control pagination. This enriches the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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's function: 'Return a list of all classifications with details for a specified project.' It uses a specific verb ('Return'), identifies the resource ('classifications'), and scopes it to a project. It also explains its role as a discovery/lookup tool for obtaining an id before calling other tools, which distinguishes it from creation or update 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 explicitly says 'Use this to discover classifications or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It also notes that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use logic, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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