List Recycled Environmentals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: pagination mechanics, 'the response reports how many pages remain,' explicit 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' and failure payload semantics (401/403/404). This exceeds the annotation baseline and provides meaningful operational expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is dense with useful information—use case, default, pagination, read-only guarantee, errors, and endpoint. It is slightly longer than strictly needed, repeating 'Required parameters' from the schema, but every sentence contributes meaning.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (JSON array of recycled environmentals), pagination behavior, error handling, filtering, and API reference. It does not describe the internal fields of a recycled environmental, but for a list operation with rich annotations and schema descriptions, this is sufficiently complete.

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 key context beyond the schema: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and page/per_page control pagination with a note about reporting remaining pages. This gives the agent actionable parameter behavior not present 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns a paginated list of soft-deleted environmental records in the Recycle Bin for the specified project.' It uses a specific verb ('returns'), identifies the resource ('environmental records'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_environmentals or show_recycled_environmental by focusing on 'recycled' and 'Recycle Bin'.

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 usage context: 'Use this to discover recycled environmentals or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also explains defaulting behavior for project_id and error scenarios. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use list_environmentals for active records), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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