List Dumpster Logs

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the default to current date when no date parameters are provided, project_id defaulting via procore_set_config, pagination behavior with remaining-page reporting, and common failure modes (401/403/404). This is substantial additional transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, usage note, default behavior, pagination, safety statement, error handling, and endpoint info. Every sentence adds value, though it could be tightened slightly without losing information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and 9 parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the return format (JSON array), pagination controls, default date scope, project_id defaulting, error handling, and API reference. The agent has enough to invoke correctly and interpret results.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that omitting date parameters defaults to the current date, that project_id can be omitted due to procore_set_config, and that page/per_page control pagination. These are not fully captured in the parameter descriptions alone.

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 all Dumpster Logs for the current date,' a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes this list operation from sibling create/update/delete/show tools by emphasizing 'all' and the default date behavior.

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 states when to use: 'Use this to discover dumpster logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also provides filtering context with date parameters. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the discovery/id-lookup guidance is sufficient.

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