List BIM File Extractions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' Beyond annotations, it discloses pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error payload with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and that extractions can fail with an errors attribute. However, it references 'The following table lists the possible error codes and types' without including the table, which is a minor transparency gap.

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 the core purpose and then provides relevant supporting details about usage, return format, safety, errors, and required parameters. It is somewhat long and includes a reference to a non-existent error table, but the overall structure is logical and each sentence contributes value.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case (discovery and id lookup), return format (JSON array), pagination, error handling, read-only safety, required parameter, and endpoint. It leaves filter parameters to the schema, which is acceptable, but the missing error code table leaves a slight gap in error-handling context.

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 only marginal parameter context by noting that page and per_page control pagination and that project_id is required. It does not elaborate on filter parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with the specific action 'Return a list of all BIM File Extractions' and further clarifies its role by stating 'Use this to discover BIM file extractions or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like show_bim_file_extraction and list_bim_files.

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 explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this to discover BIM file extractions or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' While it doesn't name alternative tools such as show_bim_file_extraction, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this list operation.

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