List Punch Items

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), read-only safety ('Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore'), error response format ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401, 403, 404'), and return type ('Returns a JSON array of punch items'). This enriches the annotation-provided readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.

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 every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, filtering link, return format, pagination, safety, error codes, required parameter, and API endpoint reference. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose before details.

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 endpoint with 15 parameters, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it returns, how pagination works, what failures look like, and the required parameter. The schema covers all filter parameters, and the filtering documentation link supplements this. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by stating the return type.

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?

All 15 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to restate them. It does add high-level context about required parameter project_id and pagination parameters, and links to filtering documentation. This is adequate given the schema coverage.

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 function: 'Return a list of all Punch Items for a specified Project.' It also specifies the intended use case: 'Use this to discover punch items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_punch_item, update_punch_item, and delete_punch_item.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover punch items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also points to filtering documentation for advanced use. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the mention of looking up IDs before other calls implies the workflow context.

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