List Punch Item Activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it confirms 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' explains pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), describes the return type ('JSON array of punch item activities'), and details error scenarios (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral disclosure that helps an agent predict outcomes.

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 compact yet information-dense, using four sentences to cover purpose, usage, output/pagination, error handling, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows logically from usage to response to failure modes. No unnecessary words or repetition beyond reinforcing the read-only nature, which is already in annotations but briefly restated for emphasis.

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 is remarkably complete. It specifies the resource and parent, explains pagination and response type, outlines common error statuses and their meanings, gives a prerequisite resolution step, and even includes the API endpoint. This covers the key aspects an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results, without over-explaining what structured data already provides.

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% with each parameter described, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'id must identify an existing parent record' and instructing to resolve it with the matching list tool first. This clarifies the id's role and prerequisite, which the schema alone does not convey. The other parameters (page, per_page, project_id) are already well-documented in the schema, and the description doesn't add further semantics for them.

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+resource statement: 'Returns a list of all Punch Item Activities for a specified Punch Item.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_punch_items (which lists punch items themselves) and show_punch_item (which shows a single punch item). The additional use case ('discover punch item activities or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it') reinforces the 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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover punch item activities or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also provides a key prerequisite: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This gives clear context for sequencing and alternatives, even if it doesn't name the sibling tool explicitly.

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