List Quantity Logs

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' (reinforces annotations but stated clearly), 'page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain,' 'if none of the date parameters are provided, only logs from the current date are returned,' 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' and detailed error payload scenarios (401, 403, 404). These details are not in the annotations and greatly aid an agent in handling responses and errors.

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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then usage, defaults, return format, error handling, and API reference. It is slightly verbose—'Required parameters: project_id' is redundant with the schema—but every other sentence earns its place. The information is front-loaded and logically ordered.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return type ('JSON array'), pagination ('reports how many pages remain'), default date behavior, project_id default, and common error statuses. It also links to external docs for filtering details. It does not enumerate the filter parameters (e.g., filters__location_id), but the link covers that. Overall, it is nearly complete for a listing tool with good annotations.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default behavior of project_id ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted') and pointing to a link for filtering with log_date, start_date, and end_date. This extra context about defaults and date filtering goes beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Returns all Quantity Logs for the current date.' It further clarifies the tool's role as a discovery mechanism: 'Use this to discover quantity logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_quantity_log, show_quantity_logs, and update_quantity_log.

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 usage context: 'Use this to discover quantity logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It implies the tool is for listing and ID lookup, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when you already have an ID and should use show_quantity_logs). This is a minor gap but still actionable.

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