List Links (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds concrete behavioral details: it is read-only, page/per_page control pagination and the response reports remaining pages, and it explains error payload patterns (401, 403, 404). This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and failure modes.

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 slightly long and repeats deprecation info, but it is front-loaded with purpose, then deprecation and alternatives, then usage and behavior. Each sentence provides useful information, and the structure is logical. Deduction for redundancy ('This endpoint will be deprecated' and 'DEPRECATED:').

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 simple list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers return type (JSON array), pagination, error handling, and required parameter. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could briefly define 'Project Home Links' for extra clarity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'Required parameters: project_id' (redundant) and says 'page and per_page control pagination' which partially duplicates schema descriptions. No new parameter semantics are provided.

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 'Returns a list of Project Home Links on a given project' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this deprecated tool from alternatives by explicitly referencing the V2 endpoint and mentioning the deprecation, making the tool's role in the API clear.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: the endpoint is deprecated, prefer a newer version, use procore_search_endpoints to find it, and use this only for discovering links or looking up ids. This directly addresses when to use versus alternatives.

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