List Company WBS Segments

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that company_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config, that pagination is controlled by page and per_page and the response reports pages remaining, and that errors are returned as payloads with HTTP status codes (401/403/404). This adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and use case, followed by default behavior, return type, pagination, read-only guarantee, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence serves a distinct informational purpose with no filler, maintaining conciseness despite covering many important aspects.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it specifies the return type (JSON array), pagination mechanics, error payload format, default parameter behavior, and even the exact REST endpoint. The annotations provide safety hints, and the description fills in operational details that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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%, providing descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds valuable semantics by noting that company_id defaults to the configured company when omitted and that page/per_page control pagination. This goes beyond the baseline 3 by adding usage context, though it does not fully describe each parameter's edge cases.

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 states 'All Segments for a given company,' which clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (company WBS segments), and scope (per company). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_wbs_segments and list_company_wbs_patterns, and the endpoint is explicitly provided.

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 explicitly says to use it 'to discover company WBS segments or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' providing clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, 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.