PM Wisdom Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real scope information: only *published* projects are retrievable and the payload includes description and public links. It omits behavior for a nonexistent or unpublished slug, which is the remaining gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, the identifier requirement, and the returned fields each carry weight. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the input constraint, and the returned content, while annotations carry the safety profile. Only the miss case (slug not found or unpublished) is undocumented.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter's schema is just a pattern and length bound. The description contributes that the slug match is exact, which is genuinely useful over the raw regex, but adds no format examples, casing rules, or failure semantics for a mismatched slug.

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 (Retrieve) plus resource (published project) and the key constraint (exact slug), which implicitly separates it from search_projects' fuzzy lookup. It never names the siblings outright, so an agent must infer the routing rather than being told it.

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?

"By its exact slug" implies this is the tool for when you already know the identifier, whereas search_projects would be for discovery, but that condition is left to inference. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the counts are scoped to *published* projects — but says nothing about result size, ordering, or how categories are sourced.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the downstream instruction second. Every clause carries 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?

For a zero-parameter enum-style lookup with full annotation coverage, the description covers what it returns (categories plus published counts) and how to consume it. There is no output schema, but the return shape is described adequately; only ordering/pagination behavior is left unstated.

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 is 4 and there is no syntax or format for the description to clarify. The note that the returned category value must be passed verbatim to search_projects is a genuine usage constraint on the output, even though there are no inputs to document.

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 specific verb and resource ('List categories') plus the payload detail ('their published project counts'), which sets it apart from get_project and search_projects, which deal in projects. It stops short of an explicit contrast statement, but the resource distinction is enough for an agent to differentiate it.

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 second sentence names the sibling tool (search_projects) and states the handoff condition: pass the exact category value onward. That makes the call sequence clear, though it never states when not to call this tool or whether results are cached/static.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. Beyond them the description adds real behavior: only published projects are returned, results are ordered by name and slug, and an empty query falls back to directory browsing. It does not describe pagination behavior across limit/offset, which is the main remaining gap.

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 verb and resource, and every sentence carries information (scope, fallback behavior, ordering). No filler or repeated annotation content; the ordering sentence is the only borderline detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for return shape, and it delivers ordering and the published-only filter but nothing about pagination totals or result fields. With four undocumented parameters and a list-returning tool, the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It only illuminates 'query' (searched fields plus empty-string default), leaving limit, offset, and category entirely unexplained. A caller has no idea that category filters by taxonomy or that limit/offset drive pagination.

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 specific verb+resource ('Search published PM Wisdom projects') and narrows scope to name, description, or tag matches. It also explains the degenerate case (empty query browses the directory). It never names its siblings, so the agent must infer how it differs from get_project on its own.

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 'empty query browses the directory' clause gives one concrete usage condition, so the agent knows the tool doubles as a browse endpoint. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer get_project for a known project or list_project_categories for taxonomy, and no stated prerequisites or limits on result volume.

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