List Checklists (Inspections)

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' reinforcing the readOnlyHint annotation. It discloses error payload behavior with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), pagination semantics (page/per_page and remaining pages), and the response shape (JSON array of checklists). This is substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 and information-rich, covering usage, defaults, response format, read-only behavior, errors, and the API endpoint. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure flows logically. It is slightly long, but for a complex 23-parameter endpoint the level of detail is justified.

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 complex list operation with 23 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: scope, response format, pagination, error handling, read-only nature, and required parameters. The filtering link provides a pointer to full filter syntax. It does not enumerate all filter parameters, but the schema already does, so this is adequate.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that page and per_page control pagination. This extra guidance elevates the score to a 4.

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 (Inspections) in a specified Project.' It further clarifies the purpose with 'Use this to discover checklists or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_checklist_inspection or list_checklist_templates that have narrower or different scopes.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to discover checklists or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also explains the project_id default behavior and pagination, giving operational context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative list endpoints like list_checklists, so it stops short of a 5.

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