List Inspectors

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a paginated JSON array, allows control via page and per_page, and includes pagination metadata. It also mentions the required parameter and API endpoint, which further aids understanding beyond 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 two sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. It includes essential details about pagination and required parameters. However, the trailing API reference ('Procore API: ... Endpoint: ...') adds minimal value for tool selection and could be omitted for brevity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly notes the return type (paginated JSON array). It explains pagination and required parameters. However, it inaccurately says 'Inspections' instead of 'inspectors', and does not elaborate on what an inspector is or any other contextual details. For a simple list tool, completeness is moderate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing all three parameters (project_id, page, per_page) with their types and descriptions. The description reinforces their usage ('Use page and per_page to control pagination') and notes the required parameter, but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool lists possible inspectors in a project. It specifies the use case: enumeration for paginated overview, finding IDs, or filtering. However, there is a slight inconsistency: it says 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Inspections' which conflicts with the tool name and endpoint (possible_inspectors), causing minor ambiguity.

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 the tool to enumerate inspectors when needing paginated overview or to find IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as other list tools for different entities. The guidance is adequate but lacks clear exclusions.

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