List Project Cost Codes

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and other annotations, the description adds extensive behavioral context: pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), default project_id behavior ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config'), and error response patterns (401/403/404 with explanations). This significantly enhances the agent's understanding of what happens when invoking the tool.

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 well-structured and information-dense without being verbose. It fronts the main purpose, then usage guidance, then pagination, read-only reassurance, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence contributes valuable context, and nothing feels redundant or wasteful.

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?

The description covers the return type (JSON array), pagination, error handling, defaults, and API endpoint. It is quite complete for a list tool. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the fields contained in each cost code object (e.g., id, code, name), but since no output schema exists, this would be helpful. Still, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds further meaning by explaining the default behavior of project_id and the purpose of page/per_page for pagination control. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 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: 'Return a distinct list of cost codes in use on vendors for a given project.' This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cost_codes (which lists all cost codes) and show_standard_cost_code_list. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

Provides explicit usage direction: 'Use this to discover project cost codes or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This gives clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage scenarios are well-defined, 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.