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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot: that no project_api_key argument is required, which removes a likely agent mistake.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The primary purpose (what is listed and what fields come back) is front-loaded, with the downstream routing note second.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, description, repo, components, maintain state), and it covers the auth question. Nothing an agent needs to call this zero-parameter tool is missing.

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?

There are no input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The mention of 'projectid' is an output field used by a sibling tool, not a this-tool parameter, and it is described clearly enough.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists this account's saved scaffold projects') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also distinguishes itself from get_scaffold by explaining the re-fetch path, so no sibling confusion remains.

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 routes the agent onward ('use the projectid with get_scaffold to re-fetch a scaffold'), giving clear follow-up context. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions for this tool, but none are really needed for a zero-argument list operation.

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