List Recycled Action Plan

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explicitly stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', describing error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and documenting pagination behavior ('response reports how many pages remain'). This provides rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 seven sentences and each sentence contributes unique information: purpose, use case, default, return type, read-only nature, error cases, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically, though slightly dense compared to the briefest examples.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential invocation context: return type (JSON array), pagination metrics, default project_id, read-only safety, error scenarios with auth guidance, and the exact API endpoint. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that page/per_page control pagination. It does not fully compensate for the lack of explanation of filter parameters, but those are documented in 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?

Description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Returns a list of Recycled Action Plans for a given project.' It clearly distinguishes from non-recycled action plan tools by the explicit 'recycled' qualifier and the stated use case of discovering recycled plans or looking up IDs for subsequent tool calls.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to discover recycled action plans or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it') and notes the project_id default behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool for non-recycled plans, so it falls short of a 5.

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