List Materials

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, including pagination behavior ('the response reports how many pages remain'), error payload details with common HTTP status codes, and the read-only guarantee (redundant with annotations but reinforces). No contradiction with 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 information-dense but well-structured, with each sentence adding value: purpose, use case, default behavior, return format, safety, error handling, required params, and API reference. No wordy fluff, though 'Read-only' is slightly redundant with annotations, it is brief.

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 covers the essential aspects: return type, pagination, error reporting, required parameters, and API endpoint. The absence of an output schema is compensated by stating 'Returns a JSON array of materials.' However, the contradictory statements about project_id being both required and defaulted create a completeness gap in parameter guidance.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that pagination parameters control the response. However, it creates confusion by stating 'project_id defaults... when omitted' while also claiming 'Required parameters: project_id' and the schema marks it required. This internal contradiction diminishes the clarity.

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 all Materials, with a specific verb and resource. It explains the use case for discovering materials and looking up ids, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_materials' or other list tools.

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 says when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover materials or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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