List Drawing Uploads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations by detailing error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and pagination behavior (page/per_page, remaining pages).

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 well-structured, front-loading purpose and usage, then covering pagination, read-only nature, error handling, and endpoint info. Each sentence contributes useful information, though it is slightly lengthy.

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 list tool with comprehensive annotations and schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, pagination, error handling, and API endpoint. It does not detail the shape of each drawing upload object, but no output schema exists, so a high-level 'JSON array' is acceptable. Overall quite complete.

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 set by procore_set_config when omitted, and that page/per_page control pagination with the response reporting remaining pages. This enhances parameter understanding.

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: 'Returns a list of all Drawing Uploads in the specified Project.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'list_drawings' by specifying 'Drawing Uploads' and adds a concrete use case: 'discover drawing uploads or to 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use this to discover drawing uploads or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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