List Communication Threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds valuable error behavior (401/403/404) and the exact endpoint. No contradictions.

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 structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage, return info, and error behavior. Most sentences add value, though 'Read-only' repeats the annotation and 'Required parameters' repeats the schema.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisite, read-only nature, and failures, but the return value is ambiguous ('Returns a single JSON object' for a list tool) and there's no mention of pagination, filtering, or the array shape. Without an output schema, this gap is significant.

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 both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about communication_id needing to resolve an existing parent record and identifies the endpoint path, but doesn't elaborate on parameter formatting or constraints beyond the 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 opening 'Return a list of email communication threads' is clear, but the subsequent guidance 'Use this when you already know which communication thread you want and need its full field set' conflicts with list semantics and overlaps with the show_communication_thread sibling, muddying the 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?

Provides a usage condition ('when you already know which communication thread you want') and a prerequisite (resolve communication_id with the matching list tool first), but does not explicitly contrast with show_communication_thread or state when not to use this list tool, and the given condition seems more appropriate for a show tool.

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