List Drawings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it adds 'page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain.' It also discloses error behavior: 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' This is substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then adds pagination, read-only status, error handling, required parameters, and API metadata. While every sentence adds value, the endpoint and Procore API section could be trimmed for an agent, and some points (read-only) duplicate 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?

It covers purpose, prerequisite resolution, return type, pagination, error statuses, and the required parameter. It does not detail the shape of a drawing object, but given the tool's discovery/ID-lookup role and the view parameter in the schema, the description is largely sufficient.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds relational context for drawing_area_id ('must identify an existing parent record') and pagination semantics ('page and per_page control pagination'), going beyond the schema's raw field 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 'Returns a list of all Drawings for a specified drawing area,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It further states 'Use this to discover drawings or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_drawing_sets or list_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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to discover drawings or to look up the id of one' and warns that 'drawing_area_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It does not name specific alternative tools or give when-not use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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