Show Fieldset

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds concrete behavioral details: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' the error payload format with common HTTP status codes (401/403/404), and the single-JSON-object return shape. Defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id is also disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then layers in scope, usage, defaults, return type, safety, error behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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 read-only retrieval tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what returns, how errors manifest, how to resolve the identifier, and under what conditions to use it. It also includes the API version and endpoint, making it self-sufficient.

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?

Although schema covers all parameters (100%), the description enriches semantics for the key parameters: company_id and project_id default to config values, fieldset_id must reference an existing parent record and be resolved via the list tool first. This provides meaning beyond type/name information.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Returns a fieldset with detailed field definitions for a given project.' It also clarifies scope ('All fields including project-level fields') and explicitly distinguishes from alternatives by stating when to use it ('when you already know which fieldset you want and need its full field set').

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you already know which fieldset you want and need its full field set' and instructs to resolve fieldset_id with 'the matching list tool first.' It also notes defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, helping the agent decide when to invoke.

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