List App Installations

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying pagination behavior, response format (JSON array with metadata), and detailing parameters beyond schema. It mentions the API endpoint and required parameters, enhancing transparency without contradicting 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 three sentences plus an API info line. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and use cases. While functional, the technical API details (Procore API and endpoint) could be considered extraneous, but overall it is appropriately sized and structured.

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 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description adequately covers pagination, required parameters, and basic return format. It does not fully describe the response structure, but combined with annotations, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning that pagination is controlled via page and per_page and that the response includes pagination metadata, which is not in the schema. This provides additional meaning beyond the property 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 that the tool returns a list of app installation requests for a given company, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It also describes use cases like pagination and ID finding, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_app_installations_v1_0_2'.

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 usage context ('when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters') but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. It gives implied guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or differentiation from similar list tools.

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