List Plan Revision Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond this: the default date behavior when no date params are provided, project_id defaulting from config, pagination control via page/per_page, response format as a JSON array, and common error status codes (401, 403, 404). This gives the agent a full picture of runtime behavior and failure modes. 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 longer than two sentences but every sentence earns its place: purpose, link to docs, default date note, use case, project_id default, response/pagination, read-only confirmation, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. It is logically ordered and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how to filter, pagination, defaults, read-only safety, error codes, required parameter, and API route. It even includes the Procore API section and endpoint. This is a fully self-contained description for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool.

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% with descriptions for every parameter including date formats and defaults. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that omitting all date parameters returns only current-date logs, that page/per_page control pagination, and that project_id defaults from procore_set_config. This enriches parameter understanding without repeating schema text.

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 Plan Revision Logs for the current date' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from show_plan_revision_logs by emphasizing 'ALL' and by describing its use for discovery and looking up IDs. This is a clear, specific statement of purpose.

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 explicit context: 'Use this to discover plan revision logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also links to documentation for date filtering and explains the default date behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with show_plan_revision_logs for single-item retrieval, but the 'Returns ALL' phrasing and discovery use-case imply the distinction. Clear context with no exclusions.

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