List Drawing Areas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes beyond by specifying the return type (JSON array), pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), defaulting of project_id from procore_set_config, and detailed failure modes with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This is substantial behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 compact and well-organized. It opens with the purpose, then the use case, default behavior, return format, safety guarantee (read-only), error handling, required parameters, and API reference. Each sentence adds unique information with no redundancy or filler.

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 operation with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, pagination, defaults, error handling, and the API endpoint. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear statement that it returns a JSON array. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interplay of page/per_page for pagination and that the response reports pages remaining, which goes beyond the schema notes. It also mentions the default behavior of project_id. This additional context justifies a 4.

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 action: 'Returns a list of all Drawing Areas in the specified Project.' It also specifies the resource (Drawing Areas) and scope (Project). The added usage note, 'Use this to discover drawing areas or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, or show individual drawing areas.

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 guidance: 'Use this to discover drawing areas or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This clearly explains the primary use case. It also implies this tool is read-only and not for mutations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., list_drawings, create_drawing_area) for when this tool should not be used.

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