List Recycled Action Plan Sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by indicating that results are paginated and include pagination metadata, and by specifying the Procore API endpoint. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail rate limits or authorization.

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 three concise sentences covering purpose, usage, pagination, and required parameters. It also includes the API endpoint and SDK details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should describe the return structure in more detail. It mentions a 'paginated JSON array of Action Plans' and metadata, but does not specify fields or typical values. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a gap. However, it does cover pagination and filters adequately.

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 mentions required parameter project_id and explains pagination control (page, per_page) but these are already described in the schema. It adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score.

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 it returns 'all Recycled Action Plan Sections for a given Project.' It specifies the resource (sections) and action (list), and differentiates from sibling tools like list_recycled_action_plans or list_recycled_action_plan_items by naming the exact resource. The mention of pagination and filtering adds specificity.

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 advises to 'use this to enumerate Action Plans when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It provides clear context and intent, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given many sibling tools, explicit exclusions would improve guidance.

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