Show Project Schedule Settings

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' the default behavior of project_id, the single JSON object return, and specific HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and failure modes, and it does not contradict any annotations.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, return type, read-only assurance, error handling, required parameter, API reference, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core function and structured logically without redundancy.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how errors are reported, default behavior, and the API endpoint. It does not need to enumerate the returned fields because the tool returns a single settings object and the description mentions 'full field set.'

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% with the parameter description 'URL path parameter — unique identifier for the project.' The description adds meaningful semantics by stating that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand the parameter's practical optionality despite being marked required.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'Schedule tool settings for the given project,' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_schedules or get_schedule_by_id. It also clarifies the use case with 'need its full field set,' removing ambiguity about what the tool retrieves.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: 'Use this when you already know which project schedule setting you want and need its full field set.' It also gives context on project_id defaulting to procore_set_config and error handling. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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