List Checklist (Inspections) Items

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns a JSON array, pagination behavior with page/per_page and pages remaining, error payloads with common HTTP status codes, and project_id default from procore_set_config. These go beyond the annotations, providing useful runtime 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 fairly compact given the amount of information. It front-loads the purpose, then gives usage, defaults, return, errors, and API path. One minor redundancy: the 'Read-only' statement repeats the annotation. Overall it is efficient and well-structured, though a touch longer than necessary.

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 7 parameters, filters, and pagination, the description covers the key aspects: what it lists, where (project), how to discover items, filtering link, pagination, return type, error handling, and defaulting for project_id. Since there is no output schema, the statement 'Returns a JSON array of checklist inspections items' provides the expected return shape. No output schema means the description carries that burden, and it addresses it adequately.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds the non-obvious behavior that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema (schema marks it required). It also clarifies that page/per_page control pagination and links to filtering docs for the filter parameters, adding context beyond the schema's one-line 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 'Lists Checklist (Inspections) Items in a specified Project,' a specific verb+resource+scope. It further clarifies common use cases: 'Use this to discover checklist inspections items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' which distinguishes it from siblings like show_checklist_inspection or list_checklists.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover checklist inspections items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also mentions filtering capabilities and pagination. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, unlike a high-scoring example that directly names a sibling tool.

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