List BIM Model Revisions

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 adds useful behavioral details: pagination behavior ('response reports how many pages remain') and failure modes with typical HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond the structured hints, though it does not cover rate limits or auth nuances.

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 longer than a minimal two-sentence version, but every sentence contributes: purpose, use case, return type, pagination, read-only assurance, error behavior, required parameter, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no fluff. A slight reduction in length would improve it, but it remains efficient for the tool's complexity.

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 list endpoint with no output schema, the description is thorough. It covers the return format (JSON array), pagination control, error handling with common status codes, the required parameter, and the API area and endpoint. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, an agent has sufficient context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema fully documents all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds only general context: page and per_page control pagination, and project_id is required. These are already evident from the schema definitions and required array, so the added value is marginal but non-zero.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Lists BIM Model Revisions associated with the specified Project.' It also distinguishes itself from related tools by stating its use for discovering revisions or looking up an id before calling another tool, and it references the exact API endpoint and area (Preconstruction > BIM).

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 gives clear contextual guidance: 'Use this to discover BIM model revisions or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This tells when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not scenarios. The read-only note also implies it is not for mutations, providing indirect exclusions.

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