List Asset Statuses

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

Adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: read-only confirmation, error payload semantics (401/403/404), and company_id default behavior. Note: the description says 'Returns a list' then 'Returns a single JSON object', an inconsistency that slightly detracts from transparency but does not contradict the 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 information-dense but efficiently organized, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence adds value (usage, defaults, return type, safety, errors, required params, API reference), with minimal redundancy aside from restating the required parameter already present in the schema.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clearly explain the return structure. The claim 'Returns a single JSON object describing the asset status' is ambiguous given the opening 'Returns a list', and there is no mention of pagination or field details for a list operation. Error codes are useful but the return semantics are incomplete.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for company_id by explaining it defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'URL path parameter' statement.

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 states 'Returns a list of Asset Statuses for a given company' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'list_asset_statuses_project' by explicitly scoping to company, and adding the use-case context of retrieving a full field set.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use this when you already know which asset status you want and need its full field set' and explains the company_id default from procore_set_config. Does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the scoping and use-case guidance are strong enough to earn a 4.

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