List Project Metadata Values

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses valuable behavioral details: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, field_id_or_name must reference an existing parent record, the operation is explicitly read-only, and it documents common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). These details meaningfully exceed what annotations alone provide and give the agent practical expectations.

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 well-structured, covering purpose, usage, defaults, prerequisites, return type (albeit contradictory), error behavior, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds information, though the contradiction about return type adds confusion that prevents a perfect score.

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?

With 14 parameters, no output schema, and a moderately complex API, the description provides essential context: API version, endpoint, error statuses, required parameters, and prerequisite resolution. However, the contradictory return-type statement and lack of detail about pagination or filtering (beyond what schema provides) leave gaps for a fully complete picture.

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 semantic value by explaining default behavior for company_id/project_id and the requirement that field_id_or_name must resolve to an existing parent record. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Returns a list of Metadata Values for the specified field') and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying it is for a known metadata value needing its full field set. However, it later contradicts itself by saying 'Returns a single JSON object describing the project metadata value,' which undermines clarity about the actual return type.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Use this when you already know which project metadata value you want and need its full field set') and gives a prerequisite for field_id_or_name ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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