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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that results are team-scoped and include the latest score, which is genuine value. It does not state whether the list is paginated, ordered, or how large it may be, so behavioral disclosure remains thin beyond 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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource. The colon-appositive phrasing ('The projects of your team: each repository branch...') slightly muddies whether a project is a branch, costing a point.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back; it names the fields conceptually (project, latest score) but never indicates whether a project identifier is returned, which the agent needs to chain into get_findings or get_report. Adequate for such a simple read, but not fully sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of team scoping implicitly confirms there are no filtering arguments, consistent with the empty 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?

Names the resource specifically ('projects of your team') and clarifies what each entry contains ('each repository branch Agnes analyses, with its latest score'), which separates it from the detail-oriented siblings like get_findings and get_report. The verb is only implied by the noun-phrase construction, and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no reference to the other tools. The entry-point role (discover a project before calling get_scoring or get_sbom) must be inferred entirely by the agent.

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