List All Project Crews

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains pagination (page/per_page and remaining pages), error payload structure with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and the default behavior of project_id. It also explicitly states the read-only nature, which is redundant but reinforcing. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with purpose and covers usage, pagination, error handling, and API reference in about four sentences. It is efficient but has minor redundancy (read-only statement mirrors annotations, required parameters listed in schema) and slightly peripheral details like the endpoint URL. Overall, it is well-structured with little waste.

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 tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, and the description adequately covers the read-only nature, pagination, error handling, and project_id default. It does not detail response fields, but no output schema exists and the description gives enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The sibling tools include create/update/delete crew operations, and this description clearly positions the tool as the read-only list operation, making it reasonably complete.

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 information by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also mentions page/per_page control pagination, but the schema already describes those. The default behavior justifies a score above baseline.

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 all crews with details for a specified project, using a specific verb ('Return a list') and resource scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_all_project_crew_ids' by emphasizing 'with details' and its use for discovering crews or looking up IDs, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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 provides clear context: 'Use this to discover project crews or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also notes the project_id default behavior from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., show_a_crew for a single crew), lacking exclusions.

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