List Asset Statuses

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

The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states read-only behavior, describes error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and notes default values from procore_set_config. However, the return-type contradiction (list vs single object) undermines transparency about what the agent can expect from the response.

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 efficiently front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes dense, useful details like error handling and defaults. However, the contradictory 'single JSON object' sentence is unnecessary and wastes words, and the required-parameters sentence repeats schema information.

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 defaults, error scenarios, and the endpoint, which is good for a tool without an output schema. Yet it does not resolve the list-versus-single-object confusion, offers no pagination or sorting context, and provides only a vague 'full field set' description of the return. A clear statement of the array response shape is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also repeats required parameters, though that is redundant. The extra default behavior justifies a score of 4.

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 first sentence clearly states 'Returns a list of Asset Statuses for a given project,' but the next sentence contradicts this by saying 'Returns a single JSON object describing the asset status.' The usage phrase 'when you already know which asset status you want' further implies a single-item fetch, not a list. This internal contradiction makes the tool's core purpose ambiguous.

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 only guidance is 'Use this when you already know which asset status you want and need its full field set,' which conflicts with a list operation and provides no clear when-not-to-use criteria. It also fails to mention obvious alternatives like the company-scoped sibling tool list_asset_statuses_company, leaving the agent without a comparison.

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