List Configurable Field Sets

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

The description explicitly notes 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' which aligns with and reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation. It also discloses failure behavior with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), providing valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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 moderately concise with several informative sentences, including error semantics and endpoint location. However, it contains redundancy such as 'Required parameters: company_id' (already in schema) and a contradictory return-type statement, which slightly bloat the text. Overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. It states 'Returns a single JSON object,' which is likely inaccurate for a list endpoint and is not explained further. It also omits pagination response details or any differentiation from related tools, leaving the tool's behavior incompletely specified.

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 describes all parameters. The description adds value by explaining that 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' which is not apparent from the schema. Other parameters are not enhanced, but this default behavior meaningfully supplements the structured data.

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 opens with a clear statement of purpose: 'Return a list of all Configurable Field Sets associated with a Company.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. However, later it says 'Returns a single JSON object describing the configurable field set,' which contradicts the list semantics and muddles the purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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 a usage hint: 'Use this when you already know which configurable field set you want and need its full field set.' This suggests a context but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like show_configurable_field_set or list_project_configurable_field_sets_company, nor does it state when not to use the tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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