List Recycled Checklist Templates

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

Annotations already mark readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination behavior ('response reports how many pages remain'), error payload details with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and explicit 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' This exceeds the minimal bar and helps the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 information-dense yet well-structured: purpose, use case, defaults, return type, pagination, safety, error handling, required params, and API reference. Each sentence earns its place, and the most critical facts (what it does, when to use) are 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying return format ('JSON array'), pagination controls, error behavior, and default project_id. It also sets up the tool within a workflow (ID lookup for later tools). This is comprehensive given the tool's moderate complexity and rich 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by noting project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also reinforces pagination semantics, providing value beyond the structured parameter descriptions.

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 a list of all Recycled Checklist Templates for a given Project.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_project_checklist_templates (non-recycled) and show_recycled_checklist_template by specifying 'recycled' and the use case of ID lookup.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to discover recycled checklist templates or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools.

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