List Budget Views

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

The description discloses returns as a JSON array, pagination behavior with page/per_page and remaining pages, and detailed failure modes (401 for expired token, 403 for missing permission, 404 for unresolved id). It also reinforces the read-only nature. These details go well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and provide actionable operational context.

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 well-structured with purpose, usage, behavior, and error handling in that order. The sentence 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' is redundant with the annotations and the endpoint might be extra for an agent, but the description remains compact and information-dense without bloat.

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 tool with no output schema and four optional parameters, the description is complete: it states the return type, pagination semantics, and common failure modes. It also tells the user how to use the result (look up an id) and where it fits in the broader API. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, leaving no critical gap.

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 a note that 'page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain,' which clarifies the effect of these parameters but does not add significant meaning for project_id or the sort enum. The added value is marginal, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Return a list of all Budget Views for a project.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and explicitly states a primary use case—'discover budget views or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'—which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_budget_view_detail_rows or list_budget_view_snapshots.

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 context on when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover budget views or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It implies the tool is a preliminary lookup step for other tools, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios or offer when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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