List Meeting Templates

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behaviors: it is read-only, returns a JSON array, pagination works via page/per_page and the response reports remaining pages, failure payloads carry HTTP statuses (401/403/404), and company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single dense paragraph where every sentence adds value: return scope, use case, default behavior, pagination, read-only guarantee, error semantics, required parameters, and API endpoint. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of a list tool, the description covers the return format (JSON array), pagination behavior, error handling, and safety profile (read-only). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results without additional context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and that page and per_page control pagination. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter behavior.

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 it returns all templates for a company, using a specific verb-resource pair. It also explains the practical use case—discovering templates or looking up an id before calling another tool—which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list meetings or meeting categories.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Use this to discover meeting templates or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings like list_meetings_v1_0 or show_a_meeting_template.

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