List Specification Section Terms

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 that, it adds valuable behavioral context: the response is a JSON array, pagination reports remaining pages, and it details common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explains the project_id default to procore_set_config, which is not in the annotations. This goes well beyond the structured data.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then covering defaults, return type, pagination, safety, errors, and API endpoint. Most sentences add value; however, 'Required parameters: project_id' is redundant with the schema's required field, and the API/endpoint line, while useful, is somewhat verbose for an agent. Overall it's efficient and earns a 4.

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 reasonably explains the return format ('JSON array of specification section terms' with page numbers) and pagination behavior. It covers error handling with common status codes, read-only nature, and the project_id default. For a list tool with 4 parameters and rich annotations, this is very complete and leaves little ambiguity for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics: it notes that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and that page/per_page control pagination while the response reports remaining pages. These details enrich the schema's static parameter info, warranting a score above baseline.

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: 'Returns extracted text terms and page numbers for a collection of Specification Sections.' This clearly defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_specification_sections (which returns sections, not terms) or list_drawing_revision_terms (a different domain). It also states the intended use case of discovering terms or looking up an id for downstream 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 says 'Use this to discover specification section terms or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' which gives clear when-to-use context. It also explains the project_id default behavior. However, it doesn't name alternative tools for exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect 5 but still provides solid guidance.

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