List Grouped Coordination Issue Status Count

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds information about pagination and required parameters, but contains an inaccuracy in stating it returns 'Coordination Issues' instead of status counts. This undermines 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 a single dense paragraph that includes unnecessary API details like 'Procore API' and endpoint path. While not overly long, it could be more concise and structured for easier parsing.

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 listing tool with good annotations, the description covers pagination, required parameters, and grouping. However, it misstates the return value (issues vs. counts) and does not explain the structure of the status counts, which is important since there is no output schema.

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%. The description adds value by explaining that grouping is by location and assignee company (matching the enum values of the 'group_by' parameter) and that page/per_page control pagination. This provides context beyond the schema.

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 title and first sentence clearly state it returns status counts grouped by location and assignee company. However, the description later says 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Coordination Issues', which is misleading because the endpoint returns counts, not the issues themselves. This inconsistency lowers the score.

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 advises using this tool for a paginated overview and filtering, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like 'list_coordination_issues' or 'show_coordination_issue_count_by_status'. Usage context is implied but not complete.

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