List Company Segment Items

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the operation is read-only, returns a JSON array, describes pagination behavior, and details common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 relatively long but every sentence contributes useful information, including the API endpoint and error handling. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage. The only redundancy is restating required parameters, which are already in the schema, but this is minor.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return type (JSON array), pagination, and error payloads. It also includes the Procore API category and endpoint. It does not mention the optional segment_item_list_id filter explicitly, but the schema covers that parameter, so the description is complete enough for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful semantic details: company_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, segment_id must reference an existing parent record, and page/per_page control pagination. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool lists Segment Items for a specific segment, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like list_project_segment_items by scoping to company segment items, and it states a concrete use case (discovering items or looking up IDs for other tools).

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 explicit usage guidance: use it to discover company segment items or look up an id before calling another tool. It also instructs that segment_id must exist and be resolved with the matching list tool first, and notes the company_id default behavior. It does not name specific alternative tools but gives sufficient context.

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