List Recycled Incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with a clear read-only statement. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by describing failure payloads with HTTP status meanings (401, 403, 404), pagination behavior including 'how many pages remain,' and the project_id default from procore_set_config.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, filtering, restore option, use case, default behavior, return format, read-only guarantee, error behavior, required parameter, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers return format (JSON array), pagination details, error conditions, endpoint path, API area, and the project_id default. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even with 16 parameters.

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 schema already documents all 16 parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting the project_id default value from procore_set_config and by stating that the tool supports the same filtering and sorting options as the main incidents list, which gives semantic context to the many filter parameters.

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 begins with 'Returns a paginated list of soft-deleted incidents in the project's recycle bin,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the main incidents list by mentioning it supports the same filtering/sorting options, and from sibling tools like show_recycled_incident or retrieve_recycled_incident.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover recycled incidents or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also references an alternative (restore endpoint) and the main incidents list. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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