List Specification Sets

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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: read-only guarantee ('Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore'), pagination controls and response behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), JSON array return format, and common error status codes (401/403/404). These details align with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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-organized, with front-loaded purpose and then supporting details. A few redundancies exist, like restating 'Required parameters: project_id' and the API endpoint path, but every sentence carries relevant information.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, return type, pagination, error handling, read-only safety, and endpoint routing—strong for a list tool with no output schema. The contradiction around project_id being both required and optional via default prevents a perfect score.

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 describes all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds pagination context and a default for project_id from procore_set_config, but this directly contradicts the schema's required field for project_id. Saying it can be omitted while the schema marks it required is misleading and could cause incorrect invocation, reducing the parameter guidance value.

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?

States exactly what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: 'List the Specification Sets in a Project.' It also clarifies the intended use (discover sets or look up an id before calling dependent tools), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_specification_set or list_specification_sections.

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?

Explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover specification sets or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also mentions the procore_set_config default and pagination behavior. It doesn't name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the context is clear for a simple list endpoint.

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