List Specification Section Divisions For A Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array of Specifications and includes pagination metadata. This adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but no contradictions.

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 concise with 4 sentences. It starts with the purpose, then usage guidelines, then parameter behavior, then API context. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, pagination, and API endpoint. However, since there is no output schema, it could have specified the exact structure of the response (e.g., what fields are in each division object), but the mention of 'pagination metadata' is sufficient 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the parameter descriptions already cover what each parameter does. The description adds value by explaining that page and per_page control pagination and that the response includes pagination metadata, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'List Specification Section Divisions for a Project.' It explains that it is used to enumerate specifications with pagination, find IDs, or filter by query parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_specification_section_division_for_a_project or 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to enumerate Specifications when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also mentions pagination parameters and the Procore API context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the context is clear.

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