List Inspectors (Deprecated)

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

Despite annotations already marking it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable context: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', describes error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and notes the return format. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 reasonably concise given the amount of useful information (deprecation, usage, return, errors, endpoint). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and deprecation, but the contradictory return-type statement adds unnecessary confusion.

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 includes return format, error handling, endpoint, and required parameters, making it fairly complete for a single-parameter tool. However, the contradiction between 'lists' and 'returns a single JSON object' creates ambiguity about the actual output, and there is no output schema to resolve this.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for project_id. The description only repeats 'Required parameters: project_id' without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Lists Possible Inspectors in a specified Project', identifying the specific verb, resource, and scope. It also includes a deprecation warning that helps distinguish it from current alternatives.

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 deprecation guidance and suggests using procore_search_endpoints for a newer version, but then confusingly states 'Use this when you already know which inspector you want and need its full field set' and 'Returns a single JSON object', which contradicts the 'list' behavior. This would mislead an agent into thinking it is a 'get' tool rather than a list tool.

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