List Project WBS Segments

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: pagination with page/per_page, the default for project_id from procore_set_config, the JSON array return format, and specific HTTP error statuses (401/403/404). These details help an agent anticipate failures and handle results.

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 efficient; every sentence contributes either purpose, usage, parameters, return type, or error handling. The opening line front-loads the core functionality, followed by practical lookup guidance and API context. It could be slightly shorter but no part is wasted.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers return type, pagination behavior, default parameter values, error handling, and API endpoint. It is fully self-contained and leaves no significant gap for an agent to guess about the tool's behavior.

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 each parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that project_id defaults to the configured value and that page/per_page control pagination, which is not in the schema. This extra semantic information justifies a score above baseline.

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 'All Segments for a given project' which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes this tool from company-level siblings by stating 'for a given project', and provides a concrete use case: discovering WBS segments or looking up an id before calling another tool.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to discover project WBS segments or fetch an id for downstream tools. It doesn't mention alternative tools like list_company_wbs_segments, but the project-scoped phrasing and the sibling names make the distinction clear enough.

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