List Specification Sections

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' describes pagination behavior ('response reports how many pages remain'), and enumerates common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond what the annotations already disclose.

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 a compact, front-loaded paragraph with every sentence earning its place: purpose, use case, return type, pagination, read-only guarantee, error handling, required parameter, API category, and endpoint. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the return type (JSON array), pagination reporting, read-only nature, common error codes, required parameter, and the exact API endpoint. For a straightforward list-with-pagination tool, this is complete enough 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'page and per_page control pagination' and 'Required parameters: project_id', but these mostly restate the schema descriptions. It adds no deeper meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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: 'List the Specification Sections in a Project.' It clearly states the scope (project-level) and the primary use case (discovery and ID lookup), which differentiates it from sibling tools like show or create tools even without naming them explicitly.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover specification sections or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, stopping short of a 5.

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