List Checklist (Inspection) Sections

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error payload format with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and the read-only reassurance. This is a meaningful addition, though it could further describe rate limiting or response schema.

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-organized and front-loaded: main purpose first, then usage guidance, return format, safety, error handling, and API reference. Each sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler or repetition of structured fields. It is compact relative to the amount of context provided.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by stating the return type (JSON array), pagination semantics, error payload structure, common HTTP error statuses, project_id default, and the Procore API endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to successfully invoke the tool and interpret the response. The parameter details are handled by the comprehensive schema.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds extra semantics by noting that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not evident from the schema's required marker. It also reiterates pagination controls. This goes beyond the baseline but does not add details for each filter parameter.

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 the Checklist Sections from Checklists (Inspections) on the Project.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings that list schedules, show individual inspections, or list recycled sections. It also states a concrete use case (discover sections or look up an id).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to discover checklist inspection sections or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It conveys clear context for the tool's role, though it does not provide explicit when-not or alternative-tool references. This is slightly above minimal but not fully exclusionary.

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