List Inspection Types

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing pagination behavior (page/per_page control, metadata) and specifying the API endpoint and category. Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints, so no contradiction. The description effectively complements them.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary information. However, the term 'paginated' is used twice, and the structure is slightly repetitive, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return structure (paginated JSON array with metadata), required parameter (company_id), and pagination controls. It also mentions the Procore API category and endpoint, providing comprehensive context for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination parameters and required company_id, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., types, formats).

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 the tool returns a list of Inspection Types associated with a Company, using specific verbs like 'Return a list' and 'enumerate Inspections'. It distinguishes from write operations like create_inspection_type by emphasizing paginated overview and ID retrieval, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for paginated overview, finding IDs, and filtering by query parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative listing tools or state when not to use it, missing a clear exclusion criterion.

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