List Checklist Schedule Attachments

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds substantial behavioral context: return format ('Returns a JSON array'), pagination details ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), and error semantics ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). This goes well beyond the annotation safety profile.

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?

Every sentence in the description contributes value: purpose, use case, parameter defaults, return type, pagination, read-only guarantee, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. The information is front-loaded and well-ordered, starting with the core action and then adding necessary operational details. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by stating the return is a JSON array and explaining pagination behavior and error payloads. It also covers parameter prerequisites, required parameters, and even provides the Procore API path and endpoint. For a list tool with this complexity, the description is complete.

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 covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics: project_id has a defaulting behavior ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted') and schedule_id has a prerequisite/resolution requirement ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'). This elevates the parameter understanding beyond the raw schema 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: 'Lists Checklist Schedule Attachments for given Project and Schedule.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_checklist_schedule_attachment and delete_checklist_schedule_attachment by focusing on the listing/discovery use case. It also clarifies how this tool fits into a workflow (looking up an id before calling another tool).

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 clearly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover checklist schedule attachments or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also provides a prerequisite resolution path: 'schedule_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' However, it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement or comparison to alternatives, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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