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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: returns up to 100 projects, and explicitly not request payloads, workflow bodies, secrets, or full target URLs. Clarifies scope and data limitations, though annotations already cover read-only and idempotent traits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, then scope and exclusions. Some minor repetition in 'when the user wants' and 'when the user requests', but overall efficient.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter sidebar opener with an output schema. It covers when to use, what is returned, and what is not included, which is everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

No parameters, so baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining the return scope (up to 100 projects) and what is excluded, which is useful even with an output schema.

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 clear verb+resource: opening the CronCool project-selection sidebar for interactive browsing. This differentiates it from sibling list_projects and get_job. The phrasing is slightly redundant ('when the user wants to open' and 'when the user requests'), but the purpose is clear.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it, and gives a negative constraint ('Not for running jobs or changing their configuration'), plus the alternative interaction modes are implicitly available via siblings. Lacks a direct pointer to a specific alternative for programmatic listing.

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