List Company Action Plan Types

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns paginated JSON and includes pagination metadata, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what's in annotations and schema (e.g., rate limits, auth specifics). 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 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence serves a function. It is efficient with no unnecessary words. Could be slightly more concise by removing the Procore API line, but still good.

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 list tool with rich annotations and fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, usage, pagination, and return format. Lacks output schema but describes response shape. Complete enough for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions company_id as required and page/per_page for pagination, but already detailed in schema. It adds a reference to the endpoint path but no new semantic info. Adequate but does not significantly enhance beyond 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 clearly states it lists all Company Action Plan Types, with a specific verb (List) and resource (Company Action Plan Types). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_company_action_plan_template_items by focusing on plan types and mentioning pagination and filtering.

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 use cases (enumerate paginated overview, find IDs, filter) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly to siblings like create or show tools. While helpful, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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