List Contributing Behaviors

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds significant behavioral context: default active-only filtering, pagination behavior (page/per_page and reporting pages remaining), company_id default from procore_set_config, and error payload format with common HTTP statuses. This enriches the agent's understanding significantly.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage, defaults, return format, safety, and error handling in a logical order. Appropriate length for a tool with 8 parameters and non-trivial behavior.

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 return type (JSON array), pagination, error scenarios, default active filtering, company_id default, required parameters, and the API endpoint. It is complete for the tool's complexity, especially given the annotations and high schema coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for key parameters: company_id defaults from config, all=true includes inactive, page/per_page control pagination. It doesn't cover every parameter (e.g., sort, filters), but the schema already provides those descriptions, so the description adds value beyond the schema for the most impactful parameters.

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 returns a paginated list of contributing behaviors for a specified company, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'contributing behaviors' and noting the scope is company-level, not project-level.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: to discover contributing behaviors or look up an id before calling another tool. It also explains the 'all' parameter for including inactive behaviors. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., list_contributing_conditions) or state when not to use it.

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