List Drawing Sets

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses project_id default behavior from procore_set_config, pagination mechanics with page/per_page and page-remaining reporting, return type (JSON array), and error payload semantics with specific HTTP statuses. It clarifies the read-only safety characteristic in prose, which is not redundant given the annotation context is minimal.

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 structured as a dense paragraph with each sentence serving a distinct function: purpose, use case, parameter defaults, return format, safety, errors, requirements, and API reference. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers purpose, use case, parameter defaults, pagination, return shape, safety, and error conditions. The schema documents each filter parameter, and the description provides the behavioral context needed to invoke successfully.

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 supplements the schema by explaining that project_id falls back to procore_set_config when omitted and that page/per_page control pagination with remaining-page reporting, adding meaning beyond the raw parameter 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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Lists the Drawing Sets in the specified Project.' It further clarifies the tool's role for discovery and ID lookup, which distinguishes it from related siblings like create_drawing_set or delete_drawing_set.

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 instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover drawing sets or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also notes that project_id defaults to procore_set_config, providing context on when omission is acceptable. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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