List Waste Logs

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' reinforcing the readOnlyHint annotation. It also discloses important behaviors: defaults (current date if no date parameters, project_id from procore_set_config), pagination (page/per_page, response reports pages remaining), return format (JSON array), and error handling (401/403/404). This is rich context that helps the agent anticipate behavior and failures.

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 longer than a typical short description but is information-dense and well-structured. Each sentence covers a distinct aspect (purpose, filtering, use case, defaults, return format, side effects, errors, API reference). There is no filler or repetition, and it front-loads the core purpose. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to its length, though all content is relevant.

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?

The description is quite complete for a list tool: it covers return type, pagination, error semantics, default behaviors, and API endpoint. However, it does not describe the fields within a waste log, and there is no output schema. Since it's a list/discovery tool, this is not critical, but a brief mention of the log fields could improve completeness for an agent trying to use the returned data.

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 adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' and that date parameters (log_date, start_date, end_date) control the date range with a current-date default. It also clarifies that page and per_page control pagination. While it doesn't detail every parameter, the description adds value beyond the raw 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 opens with 'Returns all Waste Logs for the current date,' clearly identifying the verb (returns), resource (Waste Logs), and scope (current date). It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'Use this to discover waste logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' which clarifies its role as a list/discovery tool versus the mutation or show siblings.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to discover waste logs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also references the Daily Logs documentation for date-based filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., show_waste_logs for a specific log), so it falls short of the full explicit alternative/exclusion guidance.

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