List Recycled Checklists (Inspections)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial context beyond those: pagination behavior (page/per_page, remaining pages report), error handling patterns (401/403/404), read-only confirmation, and the filter documentation link. This is credible added context, though it could go further by describing what a recycled checklist contains or how restoration works.

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 but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, default behavior, return format, pagination, read-only claim, error handling, required params, and API endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and maintains a logical flow without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (23 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, where (project), how to filter (link), pagination details, return format, safety profile, error handling, and required parameters. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and that page/per_page control pagination—details not in the schema. It also links to filtering documentation for the many filter parameters. This exceeds baseline.

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 the tool lists Recycled Checklist (Inspections) in a specified Project, using a specific verb+resource+scope. It also gives a concrete use case: discover recycled checklists or look up an id before calling a tool that needs it, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_checklists_inspections and list_recycled_checklist_templates.

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 recycled checklists 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 name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_checklists_inspections for active checklists'), so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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