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

Annotations only cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld flags; the description adds genuinely useful behavior the agent cannot get elsewhere: no AI, no credits consumed, and a documented gap (no stakeholders or stories generated). It does not describe failure modes (e.g., repo without an openspec/ folder).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and source, then the mapping semantics, then the constraints. No redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers what the tool creates and explicitly what it omits; the only minor gap is error/precondition behavior when the target repo lacks an openspec/ folder.

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% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema, including accepted URL formats. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Create) plus resource (project) and the precise source kind (public GitHub repo using OpenSpec). It further states the mapping model (spec domain → subsystem, requirement → requirement, scenarios → acceptance criteria), which cleanly separates it from projects_import_speckit and projects_import.

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 scopes usage implicitly via 'Uses no AI and no credits; stakeholders and stories are not generated', telling the agent when not to pick it (if stories/stakeholders are needed), but it never names the alternative sibling tools (projects_import_speckit, projects_import) explicitly.

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