List Recycled Actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint. The description adds value beyond annotations by confirming 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' and providing detailed error-handling behavior (401/403/404 outcomes), pagination semantics ('response reports how many pages remain'), and project_id defaulting. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

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: purpose, use case, defaulting behavior, return type, pagination, read-only confirmation, error patterns, required parameters, API version, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the most important information and does not contain fluff or redundancy.

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 thoroughly covers return format (JSON array), pagination behavior, error handling, project_id fallback, and API context. All 8 parameters are documented in the schema, and the description adds the required parameter explicitly. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without further lookup.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, page/per_page control pagination, and the response reports pages remaining. This helps the agent understand how the parameters affect output and which are required (project_id explicitly stated).

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and precisely identifies the resource: a paginated list of soft-deleted incident actions in the Recycle Bin for the specified project. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_actions (which lists non-deleted actions) and show_recycled_action (which fetches a single 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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to discover recycled actions or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also clarifies project_id defaulting behavior via procore_set_config. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the soft-deleted/Recycle Bin context strongly implies when this should be used over non-recycled list tools, so the guidance is clear without being fully explicit.

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