List Task Items

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by explicitly stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It also discloses error behavior in detail: 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' This is valuable behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 efficient and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds value: use case, return format, pagination, read-only guarantee, error handling, and required parameter. The API reference lines are useful for developers and do not feel redundant. It earns a 4 for being concise while informative.

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?

Despite having 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, use case, return type (JSON array), pagination behavior, safety (read-only), error conditions, and required parameter. Since the schema fully describes each parameter, the description does not need to repeat them. It provides a well-rounded understanding of the tool's behavior and context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description highlights that project_id is required and mentions that page and per_page control pagination, but these details are already present in the schema. It does not add significant new meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already documents, hence a middle score.

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 function: 'Returns a list of task items on a given project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, identifies the scope (project), and provides a concrete use case: 'Use this to discover task items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This effectively distinguishes it from other task-related tools like list_tasks or show_task_item.

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 offers clear context on when to use the tool for discovery and id lookup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance 'before calling a tool that needs it' implies the tool's role in a workflow. This is strong usage guidance, though it could be enhanced by mentioning related tools like list_tasks as a comparison.

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