List Project Upload Requirements

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only ('Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore'), which aligns with the annotations. It also adds valuable behavioral context: default values from procore_set_config, error payload structure, and common HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint and provides practical operational detail.

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 moderately sized and includes several important pieces of information (defaults, errors, endpoint). However, it contains redundancy (e.g., 'Required parameters' repeats the schema) and the contradictory 'list' vs 'single JSON object' statements add confusion without adding value. A more streamlined description would be clearer.

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?

For a simple read-only endpoint, the description covers purpose, defaults, errors, and endpoint, but the critical return-type ambiguity (list vs single object) is unresolved. It also lacks explicit mention of pagination behavior despite page/per_page parameters existing in the schema. With no output schema, the description needed to clarify the return shape, and it failed to do so consistently.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaningful semantics for the required parameters by explaining that company_id and project_id default to values set by procore_set_config when omitted. This is useful context not present in the schema. It does not describe page/locale/per_page, but the schema already documents those, so no penalty.

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 starts by saying 'Returns a list of Upload Requirements' but then states 'Returns a single JSON object describing the project upload requirement,' which is a direct contradiction. Additionally, 'Use this when you already know which project upload requirement you want and need its full field set' reads like a show/detail operation, not a list operation. This confuses the tool's core 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 only usage guidance is 'Use this when you already know which project upload requirement you want and need its full field set,' which conflicts with the list semantics and doesn't distinguish this from show_project_upload. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations, and the error codes are behavioral info rather than usage guidance.

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