List Safety Violation Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' Beyond annotations, it adds behavioral details: pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error response patterns (401/403/404), and the project_id default from procore_set_config. This goes beyond the structured 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 relatively long but structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information (dates, usage, defaults, response format, error handling, endpoint). Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Read-only' repeats annotations), but overall it is efficient and organized.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return type ('JSON array'), pagination behavior, and common error statuses. It also includes the Procore API path and a documentation link for filtering. It does not enumerate the log fields, but for a list/discovery tool this is acceptable, especially with rich annotations and schema documentation.

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 extra meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitting date parameters defaults to the current date, explains pagination via page/per_page, and notes that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value. These details supplement the schema descriptions, providing context not obvious from parameter names alone.

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 all Safety Violation Logs for the current date, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create/show/update/delete safety violation logs) by noting it is for discovery and looking up ids before calling other 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to discover safety violation logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also explains the default date behavior and project_id default, giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined.

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