List Inspection Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds substantial context beyond these: it states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' describes default date behavior, pagination with remaining-pages reporting, project_id defaulting via procore_set_config, and common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). This far exceeds annotation coverage.

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: it front-loads the core action, then provides filtered details on usage, defaults, return format, safety, and errors. Each sentence contributes unique information, though it is longer than ideal and could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema, the description covers return type (JSON array), pagination behavior, defaults, error conditions, and the API endpoint. Combined with full parameter documentation and rich annotations, it gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all 9 parameters described. The description adds semantic value by explaining the default behavior when no date parameters are provided, linking to filtering documentation for log_date/start_date/end_date, noting that page/per_page control pagination, and stating project_id defaults to the configured value if omitted.

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 all Inspection Logs for the current date,' clearly scoping the operation. It also distinguishes this list tool from single-record tools by noting its role in discovering logs or looking up an id 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 guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this to discover inspection logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it') and explains date-filter behavior with default fallback. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for retrieving a single known log, so the guidance is clear but not fully exclusive.

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