List Observation Assignee Options

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: permission-based filtering (users who cannot assign standard-level members see only Observations admins), pagination behavior (page/per_page control, response reports pages remaining), and specific error semantics (401 for expired token, 403 for missing tool permission, 404 for unresolvable ID). This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict outcomes.

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 and uses a logical flow: purpose, usage timing, permission behavior, return format, read-only nature, and errors. It is somewhat long and includes API taxonomy details (Procore API path, endpoint) that may be redundant, but every sentence contributes useful information and the structure is easy to scan.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return type (JSON array), pagination details, permission-based variations, and common error codes. It does not describe the structure of individual option objects (e.g., id, name), which would be helpful, but given the simple nature of the tool and the strong annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that page/per_page control pagination, that project_id is required, and by linking the returned IDs to the assignee_id/assignee_ids fields. This meaningfully supplements the schema-level descriptions.

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 ('Returns') and a precise resource ('Project users the requesting user is permitted to assign to an Observation'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling observation tools like list_observation_items or list_observation_types. The additional guidance about setting observation[assignee_id] reinforces the tool's exact role.

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 the tool ('Call this before setting observation[assignee_id] or observation[assignee_ids]') and explains the consequence of assigning a user not in the list (rejected with a 403). It also clarifies the use case of discovering options or looking up an ID before invoking another tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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