List Recycled RFIs

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by disclosing pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error payload common statuses (401/403/404), the endpoint path, and the config-based project_id default. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 densely packed but every sentence contributes: purpose, use case, parameter behavior, return format, side-effect statement, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return type ('JSON array of recycled RFIs'), pagination details, common errors, and required parameters. It includes the API path and mentions pages-remaining in the response, making it complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra context: project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, and page/per_page control pagination. There is a minor inconsistency because the schema marks project_id as required while the description says it has a default, but the description also states 'Required parameters: project_id,' which reinforces 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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Returns all deleted RFIs in a specified Project.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_rfis and show_rfi by targeting the recycle bin and explicitly mentions looking up an id for downstream tools.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to discover recycled RFIs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the focus on deleted/recycled RFIs communicates when this tool is appropriate.

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