The projects on this account, each with its facts (eligibility answers) and its pack (what a submission form asks for), plus what is still missing from the pack. Call it whenever the maker says "my product" or "my project" without naming one: it is how you find out which project they mean, and every other account tool takes the id it returns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output structure (facts, pack, missing items) and the role of the returned ID for other tools. It implies read-only behavior by describing a listing operation, though it does not explicitly state side effects or permissions.
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 two sentences, front-loading the primary function and then delivering a crisp use case. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage, with no redundant information.
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 no output schema, the description explains the key return elements: projects with facts, pack, missing items, and an ID usable by other tools. It places the tool within the broader toolset. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format (e.g., array of projects) but that is easily inferred.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain input schema. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty object. The description focuses on output semantics, which is appropriate for a parameterless list operation.
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 that the tool lists all projects on the account, each with its facts (eligibility answers), pack (submission form fields), and missing pack items. It also distinguishes itself as the means to resolve ambiguous references to 'my project', setting it apart from sibling tools that require 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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it whenever the maker says "my product" or "my project" without naming one' and explains that every other account tool takes the ID it returns. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource/action: projects vs platforms vs submissions vs account, and pairings like search_platforms/get_platform and qualify_project/plan_submissions are separated by clear scope. The only mild ambiguity is get_platform with brief=true vs submission_playbook, since both can return the same form brief, but one is generic and the other is project-specific.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow verb_noun snake_case (create_project, list_submissions, qualify_project, record_submission). The exceptions are whoami, a common idiom rather than verb_noun, and submission_playbook, a noun phrase instead of something like get_submission_playbook, so the pattern is strong but not perfect.
11 tools is comfortably within the well-scoped range for a domain covering projects, platforms, submissions, planning, and account identity. Each tool maps to a recognizable workflow step and none feel redundant.
The set covers the core lifecycle: create/read/update projects, search/read platforms, qualify and plan, list/record submissions, and identify the account. It lacks delete_project and a way to retrieve an existing plan or edit a submission record, but those are workable gaps rather than blockers.
