List Recycled Links

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds permission requirements, confirms read-only behavior ('Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore'), explains pagination and page-count reporting, and details failure semantics (401/403/404). This is substantial contextual behavior that 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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, permissions, use case, return shape, pagination, read-only note, error handling, required params, and API context. It is a bit long but not redundant; front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 stating the return is a JSON array of recycled links and how pagination is reported. It covers permissions, errors, endpoint, required parameters, and use case. The tool is a simple read-only list, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 already covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description enhances this by stating 'page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain' and explicitly calling out 'Required parameters: project_id,' which adds functional meaning beyond the raw 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 'Returns a list of all Project Home Links in the recycle bin for a specific project,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It is distinctly different from sibling tools like list_links (active links) and retrieve_recycled_link (single recycled link), so it helps the agent differentiate.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to discover recycled links or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It also mentions required permissions (Company Admin or Project Home Admin) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like retrieve_recycled_link, so a clear exclusion is missing.

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