List Commitment Contract Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond those: it explicitly states the tool is read-only, explains defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, and details common failure responses (401, 403, 404). This is consistent with the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and error handling.

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 verbose and contains repeated or contradictory information: it says both 'list of attachments' and 'single JSON object,' and includes a use-case sentence that seems misaligned with a list operation. While it front-loads the main verb, the redundancies and internal inconsistency reduce clarity and make it less concise than it could be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must clarify return values. Instead, it gives contradictory statements about returning a list versus a single object, leaving the agent uncertain about pagination and the shape of the response. It covers failure modes and prerequisites, but the return-type ambiguity is a significant gap for a read-only list endpoint.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted and that commitment_contract_id must reference an existing parent record. It also lists the required parameters, adding value beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource ('Returns a list of attachments for a given commitment contract'), but then contradicts itself by saying 'Returns a single JSON object describing the commitment contract attachment.' The use-case sentence ('Use this when you already know which commitment contract attachment you want') sounds like retrieving a specific item rather than listing them, which muddies the core purpose.

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 gives a misleading usage hint ('when you already know which commitment contract attachment you want') that better fits a show/detail tool. It does provide useful guidance to resolve the parent commitment_contract_id with the list tool first, but it does not clearly differentiate when to use this list tool versus sibling tools like show_commitment_contract_attachment or list_attachments_project.

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