List Change Event Comments

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, including defaulting of company_id/project_id from procore_set_config and detailed error status mappings (401, 403, 404). However, it states 'Returns a single JSON object describing the change event comment,' which contradicts the plural 'comments' in the first sentence and the list-oriented tool name; this ambiguous return-type disclosure is a 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 well-structured with the purpose front-loaded and supplementary details (defaults, errors, endpoint) placed after. It is slightly repetitive by listing required parameters after the schema already defines them, and the read-only statement duplicates the annotation, but overall it remains concise and scannable.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description must clarify return values, but the singular/plural inconsistency (comments vs single object) leaves the agent uncertain about the response shape. It also omits any mention of pagination or sorting for a list operation. The error semantics and endpoint information are strong, but the output ambiguity is a significant completeness 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values and that change_event_id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'URL path parameter' descriptions.

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: 'Returns comments for a change event,' which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_change_events or create_change_event_comment. However, the follow-up 'Use this when you already know which change event comment you want' introduces some ambiguity about whether this is a list or single-fetch tool, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'when you already know which change event comment you want and need its full field set,' and instructs resolving the parent change_event_id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is practical and specific enough.

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