List Filter Options For Submittal Revision

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns a JSON array of available filter values and mentions pagination via page/per_page parameters. It does not contradict annotations. The additional endpoint info (Procore API and URL) provides useful context, but behavioral details beyond annotations are 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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the API endpoint information. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 description mentions pagination and a JSON array return, but lacks details on the structure of filter options (e.g., keys like 'key' and 'value' pairs). There is no output schema, so the agent may need more clarity on what 'available filter values' means. Overall, adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description merely repeats that project_id is required, adding no new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states it returns all Filter Options for Submittal Revision for a project. The tool name and description align, specifying the exact resource (Submittal Revision filter options). While it mentions 'enumerate Submittals,' the primary purpose is well-defined and distinguishable from sibling filter option tools.

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 usage context ('use this to enumerate Submittals when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the many sibling filter tools, more explicit guidance would improve this dimension.

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