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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention default limits (limit=100), default exclusions (include_archived=false), or that results can be filtered by status/team/initiative. These are significant behavioral traits that are only discoverable via the input schema, but the description adds no context beyond a bare listing of output fields.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description fails to mention important behavioral aspects like pagination (limit), default filtering, and the fact that archiving is excluded by default. These are critical for an agent to know when invoking the tool effectively. The description is too minimal to be considered complete for a list tool with multiple optional filters.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any semantic information about parameters; it only lists output fields. Since the schema already covers most parameters well, the description adds little value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 what the tool does: list projects, and specifies key output attributes (health, progress, lead, member count). This is distinct from sibling tools like project_get (which fetches a single project) or work_list (which lists work items). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it supports filtering, so it's not as specific as it could be, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_get or work_list. There is no mention of 'use this when you need all projects' or any exclusions. An agent must infer from the name and schema, which is insufficient for optimal decision-making.

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