List Recycled Observation Items

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' which reinforces the readOnlyHint. It also discloses error behavior (401, 403, 404), pagination details, output format (JSON array), and the project_id default. This adds substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-organized, starting with the core purpose, then use case, defaults, output format, read-only safety, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and there is no redundancy. It is concise yet information-dense.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: output type (JSON array), pagination, error modes, project_id default, and a reference to filtering documentation. It does not enumerate the fields of a recycled observation item, but the tool name and API context make those standard, and the description is otherwise thorough.

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%, and each filter parameter has a thorough description in the schema itself. The tool description adds modest value by noting project_id defaults to procore_set_config and mentioning that page/per_page control pagination, but it mostly defers to the schema and a generic filtering link.

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 'Returns a collection of Recycled Observation Items,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Use this to discover recycled observation items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' which is specific to recycled items and not the active observation list.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to discover recycled observation items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also notes that project_id defaults to the config value, providing practical context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., list_observation_items), though the 'recycled' scope makes the distinction clear.

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