List Witness Statements

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.' It adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: response format (JSON array), pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), and error semantics (HTTP statuses 401/403/404). This is rich, non-redundant transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then usage, defaults, return format, safety, errors, and API reference. Every sentence adds value with no filler. Despite its length, it is dense with actionable 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return format, pagination, error handling, safety, API endpoint, and required parameters. The schema covers individual filter/sort parameters, so combined they provide a complete picture. No critical gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and page/per_page control pagination. This clarifies how parameters behave in practice, justifying a 4.

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 returns a list of Witness Statements for a project, using a specific verb ('Returns a list'). It also distinguishes from siblings like create/show/destroy/recycled-witness-statement tools by explicitly noting its use case: 'Use this to discover witness statements or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from mutating or scoped alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this to discover witness statements or to look up the id...'). It also mentions the project_id default behavior, which helps with setup. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when *not* to use it (e.g., when listing recycled statements), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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