List Budget Modifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations by describing error payload structures (HTTP status codes 401, 403, 404) and pagination behavior, including that the response reports how many pages remain. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use case, parameters, return type, read-only note, error behavior, and API endpoint. It is slightly longer than necessary due to minor redundancy with annotations (read-only) and schema (required parameters), but every sentence contributes useful 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by stating the return type ('JSON array of budget modifications') and pagination semantics. It also covers error behaviors and provides the API endpoint and domain. It does not detail the fields of a budget modification object, which would help an agent extract an ID, but for a list tool the description is reasonably complete.

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. The description adds meaningful semantics by noting that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and that page and per_page control pagination. This supplements the schema descriptions with practical usage details.

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 list of all Budget Modifications for a project, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like show_budget_modification and create_budget_modification by explicitly mentioning the use case of discovering modifications and looking up an ID for other tools. The endpoint and API context further reinforce the purpose.

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 says to use this tool to discover budget modifications or look up an ID before calling a tool that needs it, providing clear invocation context. It also explains that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, which is important for usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the link to Budget Changes API documentation implies a migration relationship.

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