List Project Inactive Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds substantial behavioral context: pagination mechanics ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error payload structure with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and the project_id default behavior. This goes well beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides dense, relevant context: filtering link, use case, pagination, read-only nature, error behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. There is some minor redundancy ('Return a list' vs 'Returns a JSON array', and 'Read-only' repeating the annotation), but overall the structure is logical and each sentence adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers return type, pagination, error handling, default behavior, filtering documentation link, and the complete API endpoint. For a read-only list tool with four parameters and strong annotations, this description is fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining pagination parameters ('page and per_page control pagination') and revealing that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted—information not present in the schema. It also confirms the required parameter, strengthening the schema.

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 and resource: 'Return a list of all Inactive Users associated with a Project.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_project_users by explicitly scoping to inactive users and providing a use case ('discover project inactive users or to look up the id of one').

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 states when to use it: 'Use this to discover project inactive users or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also provides contextual details like project_id defaulting to procore_set_config and pagination control. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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