List RFIs

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, pagination is controlled by page/per_page with a report of remaining pages, response is a JSON array, and failures carry HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). The read-only statement is consistent with annotations, so 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 a dense block of 11 sentences, each providing unique information (purpose, serializer_view, filtering link, discovery use case, project_id default, pagination, read-only, error handling, required params, API category, endpoint). There is minor redundancy with the schema (e.g., 'Required parameters: project_id'), but overall it is efficiently organized and front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (30 parameters) and lack of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, key parameter semantics, return format, pagination behavior, error handling, and API endpoint reference. No critical gaps remain for an agent to invoke this list tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that serializer_view controls alternate response shapes, project_id defaults to a config value, and page/per_page manage pagination. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, earning a 4.

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 all RFIs in a specified Project,' a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like show_rfi (single RFI) by emphasizing the list nature and even states usage for discovering RFIs or looking up IDs before invoking another tool.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this to discover RFIs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' which is a clear when-to-use directive. It also references filtering capabilities, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as show_rfi or create_rfi for other scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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