List Assets

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly confirms read-only behavior, lists typical HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404), and mentions defaulting of company_id/project_id from procore_set_config. However, the contradictory return-type statement ('single JSON object' vs 'List of Assets') and the defaulting claim that conflicts with the schema's required flag undermine the transparency. With annotations already covering the read-only and idempotent hints, these additions are valuable but not fully reliable.

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 a dense paragraph with redundant and misleading content. It repeats the required-parameter information already present in the schema, restates read-only behavior already captured by annotations, and includes the contradictory 'single JSON object' sentence. It could be far more concise and structured, e.g., by clearly stating 'paginated list' and using bullets for error handling.

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?

This is a 22-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, so the description must clarify the response shape. Instead, it misstates the response as a single asset object, omits any mention of pagination (despite page/per_page parameters), and does not explain how filters narrow results. While endpoint and error-code details are useful, the core misunderstanding about the return type leaves the description incomplete and potentially misleading.

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, but the description actively introduces confusion rather than adding value. It says company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, yet the schema marks them as required and the description also calls them 'Required parameters.' This contradiction could lead an agent to omit required fields or mismanage invocation. No other parameters are meaningfully enriched beyond their schema 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 first sentence, 'Returns List of Assets by given Company and Project,' is clear, but the very next sentence claims 'Returns a single JSON object describing the asset,' which directly contradicts the list semantics. The phrase 'Use this when you already know which asset you want and need its full field set' further suggests a show/detail operation rather than a listing, making the tool's actual purpose confusing for an agent.

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 usage guidance, 'Use this when you already know which asset you want and need its full field set,' is misleading because it describes a show-asset scenario, not a list scenario. There is no mention of when to prefer this over sibling tools like list_assets_company, show_asset_project, or show_asset_by_code_project, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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