List Signatures

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: project_id defaults to procore_set_config, pagination behavior ('response reports how many pages remain'), read-only nature (though annotations already state it), and detailed error semantics (401, 403, 404 status codes). This is rich context that helps the agent predict behavior.

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 six sentences, each contributing unique information: purpose, use case, default project_id, pagination, read-only nature, error handling, and API endpoint. It is dense but not bloated; however, it is longer than necessary and could be slightly tightened.

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 return type (JSON array of signatures), pagination details, error statuses, default project_id behavior, and the endpoint. With no output schema, it does not enumerate the fields inside each signature object, which is a minor gap for a tool claiming 'detailed information'. Overall, it is fairly complete for a list operation.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema, notably that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, and that page/per_page control pagination with a page-remaining report. This elevates it above the baseline but does not fully compensate for the lack of detail on each signature's fields.

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 action: 'Return all Signatures detailed information' with a specific resource (signatures for a project). It also explains the intended use case: 'Use this to discover signatures or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_signatures_project_v1_0, so it falls short of full 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 context for when to use the tool ('discover signatures or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent.

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