List Checklist Item Observations

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), default behavior for project_id, and detailed error handling with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds significant value beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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 dense but every sentence provides useful information: purpose, usage, defaults, return type, read-only note, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically, with no unnecessary wording.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (JSON array of checklist item observations), pagination, error payloads, and required parameters. It also provides the endpoint and API category, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 value by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and clarifies that page/per_page control pagination and the response reports pages remaining. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Returns the Observations from Checklist (Inspection) Items on the Project' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds practical usage context: 'Use this to discover checklist item observations or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This distinguishes it from sibling list tools focused on other resources (e.g., list_checklists, list_checklist_templates).

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 when to use it ('Use this to discover checklist item observations or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it') and notes project_id default behavior. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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