List Drawing Revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' Beyond annotations, it adds actionable behavioral details: pagination via page/per_page with page-count reporting, default project_id from procore_set_config, and common HTTP error statuses (401/403/404). This extra context goes beyond the structured annotations, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 organized: purpose, usage, defaults, return shape, safety, errors, and API reference. Every sentence adds useful information without fluff. It is longer than minimal but justified given the tool's 16 parameters and the need to convey error/pagination behavior, so it earns a 4.

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 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: required project_id, pagination behavior, read-only nature, error formats, and the endpoint for reference. It sufficiently explains what the tool returns (JSON array with pages remaining) without needing to enumerate every field. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 semantic value by explaining that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, and that page/per_page control pagination. It also clarifies that the response reports pages remaining, which helps parameter interpretation beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a list of all Drawing Revisions in the specified Project.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_drawings (which lists drawings) and show_drawing_revision (single revision) by emphasizing the list-all behavior and the id-lookup use case ('look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it').

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 states when to use it: 'Use this to discover drawing revisions or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, though the sibling tools make this implicit. This earns a 4 rather than 5.

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