List Drawing Disciplines

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the return format (JSON array), pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), confirms read-only behavior, and details common failure modes with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This is substantial additional context that helps the agent anticipate behavior.

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 long but efficiently structured: it starts with the core purpose, then use case, default behavior, return/pagination, read-only note, error handling, required params, and API reference. Each sentence carries meaningful content, though the API/endpoint line is somewhat extra. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 due to slight redundancy (e.g., 'Read-only' is also in annotations).

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (JSON array), pagination, read-only nature, and error scenarios. It also mentions the endpoint and API version. For a list tool with annotations already providing safety hints, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config, and that page/per_page control pagination with reporting of remaining pages. It also lists the required parameter project_id. This goes beyond the schema's simple definitions.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Lists the drawing disciplines recorded in the specified Procore project.' It distinguishes itself by noting it can be used to look up an id before calling another tool, which clarifies its role as a discovery/list tool. The scope ('in the specified Procore project') is clear.

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 states when to use it: 'Use this to discover drawing disciplines or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also provides a default behavior for project_id. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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