List Responses

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

The description substantially exceeds the annotations by disclosing error payload behavior with specific HTTP statuses (401 token expired, 403 permission missing, 404 unresolved id), pagination semantics ('response reports how many pages remain'), the JSON array return format, and the procore_set_config default. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond what readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already convey, with no contradiction.

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 purpose statement and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: discovery use case, config default, return format/pagination, read-only safety, error semantics, required parameters, and endpoint reference. There is no filler or redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, configuration defaults, pagination behavior, error handling, and the API location — all essential context for a list/discovery tool. The only minor gap is that, since there is no output schema, the item-level field structure of each response object is not described; however, the explicit JSON array and pagination statement make the tool usable without it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value above the schema by clarifying that company_id can default from procore_set_config despite being marked required, and by confirming that page and per_page control pagination. This is meaningful supplementary meaning beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 specific verb+resource statement — 'List Responses for a Company' — and the endpoint path (GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/responses) further disambiguates the exact resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling listing tools such as list_responses_in_the_specified_item_response_set or list_submittal_responses, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 responses or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also explains the company_id default from procore_set_config, which is practical invocation guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use exclusions or named alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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