List Item Response Sets

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states read-only behavior ('it changes nothing'), describes the return type as a JSON array, explains pagination behavior, and lists common HTTP error codes with their meanings. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, return format, pagination, error handling, and endpoint. It is somewhat longer than minimal but every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (JSON array), pagination behavior (page/per_page, pages remaining), error scenarios, and the default company_id behavior. Combined with rich schema and annotations, this is complete for a list tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description still adds value by explaining that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, which is not evident from the schema, and clarifies that page and per_page control pagination.

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: 'List Checklist Item Response Sets for a specified Company.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like show_item_response_set and list_responses_in_the_specified_item_response_set by framing it as the discovery/list tool for finding an ID before calling another tool.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to discover item response sets or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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