List Work Activities

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds significant behavioral context: pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error semantics ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401, 403, 404'), and the default behavior for company_id. These details go beyond the structured metadata.

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, opening with the primary purpose and then layering usage, pagination, safety, error handling, and API reference. Each sentence contributes distinct information, though the endpoint specification and error status details make it slightly longer than strictly necessary. Still, it remains focused and easy to parse.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, when to use, default parameter behavior, pagination, and error responses. It does not describe the structure of an individual work activity, but the input schema covers all filter parameters. Given the rich annotations and clear scope, this is adequately complete for an AI agent to invoke the tool 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%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds value by explaining that company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted (despite schema marking it required), and clarifies pagination behavior for page and per_page. This provides meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 function: 'Return a list of all Work Activities associated with a Company' with a specific verb ('list'), resource ('Work Activities'), and scope ('associated with a Company'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting its role in discovery and ID lookup before calling other tools that need an ID.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover work activities or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also provides context about company_id defaulting to the configured value when omitted. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for single-item retrieval (e.g., show_work_activity), so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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