List Observations Response Logs

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing error responses (401, 403, 404), pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), and the project_id default. It also reaffirms safety with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' This is valuable behavioral context not present in the 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 dense but every sentence contributes information: purpose, link to filtering docs, use case, default behavior, return format, read-only status, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is a single paragraph, not overly long, and effectively front-loaded. A half-point deduction for slightly run-on structure, but still efficient.

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 endpoint with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned (JSON array of response logs), pagination and remaining pages, error cases, default project_id, required parameters, and a link to filtering documentation. This is comprehensive and self-sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 extra meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, and that page/per_page control pagination. This enriches the schema descriptions, justifying a 4 rather than baseline 3.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a collection of Response Logs scoped to viewable Observations.' It also provides a use case for discovering response logs or looking up an ID. While it distinguishes itself from create/update tools by emphasizing read-only, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like 'list_observation_item_response_logs'.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to discover observations response logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also mentions the default behavior for project_id. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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