List Monitoring Resources

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

Adds valuable operational context beyond annotations: pagination behavior (page, per_page, remaining pages), response format (JSON array), and error payload with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). The read-only statement aligns with annotations but is reinforced. No contradiction.

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?

Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, defaults, response, read-only confirmation, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. Information-dense without fluff and front-loaded with the core action.

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 list operation, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, when to use, response shape, pagination, error scenarios, default behavior, and endpoint. With no output schema, the description provides enough detail for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret results.

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%, but description adds meaning beyond the schema: project_id default behavior from procore_set_config, and explains that page/per_page control pagination with remaining pages reported. It doesn't mention forecast_start_date, but schema already documents it, so this is sufficient.

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 a list of Monitoring Resources on a given project, with a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by explaining it's for discovery and id lookup 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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'Use this to discover monitoring resources or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also notes project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, providing practical usage context. This implicitly differentiates from create/update/delete siblings.

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