List Schedule Imports

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and details failure modes: 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' It also discloses pagination behavior and that the response reports remaining pages, which goes well beyond 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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage guidance, return format, pagination, safety, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slight redundancy with annotations ('Read-only') reduces conciseness slightly, but overall it is efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does: 'Returns a JSON array of schedule imports' and 'the response reports how many pages remain.' It also covers error payloads, required parameters, and the API endpoint. Minor gaps remain (e.g., exact fields in the response), but for a list operation with good error and pagination details, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for pagination: 'page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain.' It also clarifies the required parameter: 'Required parameters: project_id.' This adds value beyond the schema's basic 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 and resource: 'Return a list of schedule imports for this project, most recent first.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to schedule imports and explaining its use case: 'Use this to discover schedule imports or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This clearly differentiates it from other list 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover schedule imports or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This provides clear context and implies a prerequisite role. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, so it does not fully reach the top score.

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