List Schedule Resources

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: read-only assurance, error payload structure with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and default company_id behavior. However, the return-type contradiction ('all resources' vs 'single JSON object') undermines transparency about the actual output.

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 sized and front-loaded with the main action. But it repeats the return type inconsistently ('all resources' vs 'single JSON object') and includes some filler ('Procore API: Company Admin > Company Settings') that isn't essential. It earns a mid-range score for structure but loses points for the contradictory statements.

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?

With no output schema, the description must clearly state the return shape, but it gives conflicting information (list vs single object). It also omits explanation of pagination and filter parameters despite their presence in the schema, leaving the agent without a clear picture of the tool's full behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting company_id defaults to procore_set_config, and it explicitly calls out the required parameter. However, it fails to explain pagination/filtering parameters (page, per_page, filters__name) and the 'single object' claim confuses the expected output.

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 states 'Returns all resources for a given company' but then contradicts itself with 'Returns a single JSON object describing the schedule resource.' The name implies listing, but the description shifts to a singular show-like behavior, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually does.

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 offers a usage hint ('Use this when you already know which schedule resource you want'), but this directly conflicts with the 'returns all resources' framing. No alternatives are mentioned, and the contradictory guidance fails to clarify when to use this versus sibling tools like list_resources_v1_0 or show_resource_v1_0.

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