List Project Memberships

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

The description discloses much more than the annotations: it includes inactive memberships, explains pagination with page/per_page and page-count reporting, states the return format is a JSON array, clarifies the project_id default from procore_set_config, and enumerates common error statuses. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 long but every sentence earns its place: scope, inclusion, use case, default, return format, pagination, read-only reassurance, error behavior, required params, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and terse in each supporting detail.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers return type, pagination, error cases, default behavior, and required parameters. For a list tool, this is fully complete and leaves no critical gap for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already describes all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that pagination reports how many pages remain, which enriches the agent's understanding beyond the schema 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 states a specific verb+resource with clear scope: 'List all Project Memberships on a given Project.' It also adds that it includes inactive Users/Vendors and identifies the use case of discovering memberships or looking up an ID, which differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_project_users.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to discover project memberships or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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