List Body Parts

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: error payload details (401/403/404), pagination reporting, default company_id behavior, and explicit read-only claim consistent with annotations. This provides valuable operational transparency.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading purpose before technical details. While longer than ideal, each sentence provides useful information (usage, defaults, error handling, endpoint). It could be trimmed slightly but earns its length.

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 return format (JSON array), pagination behavior, error handling, permissions, API endpoint, and required parameters. For a list operation with no output schema, this is comprehensive and sufficient for an agent to invoke the 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 schema already documents all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for company_id (defaults to procore_set_config), page/per_page (pagination control), and filters__selectable (filtering), exceeding the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool returns a paginated list of all body parts for incident injuries, with a specific verb and resource. It also provides usage intent (discover body parts or look up an id). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_affected_body_parts, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a clear use case: discover body parts or look up an id before calling another tool. It also notes the read-only nature and default company_id behavior. It does not mention when to prefer an alternative tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion/alternative guidance.

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