List Recent Activity Items

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error handling ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'), and a default behavior for project_id ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted'). It also confirms read-only behavior, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers usage, defaulting behavior, pagination, read-only nature, error payloads, required parameters, and API context. No fluff or repetition of schema details. The logical flow is clear.

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 all essential aspects: return type ('JSON array'), pagination with remaining page count, error payloads with common HTTP statuses, required parameter, and the API endpoint path. It also situates the tool within the Procore API ('Core > Project'). This is comprehensive for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, which is critical for invocation. It also mentions that page and per_page control pagination, giving a hint about their role. While the schema marks project_id as required, the description's default statement is slightly contradictory but ultimately adds practical semantic meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Return a list') and resource ('items that have been recently updated by the users'), which clearly defines the tool's function. It also explains why to use it ('discover recent activity items' or 'look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), further distinguishing its purpose from the many sibling list tools. No sibling tool targets 'recent activity', so it is clearly differentiated.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover recent activity items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This is explicit usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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