Projects

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds modest context (projects are case studies and filterable), but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as filtering semantics, ordering, or result shape. No contradiction with 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 conveys the resource owner, the content type, and the two filtering dimensions. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters, a rich output schema, and safety annotations, the description is fully adequate. An agent can determine what the tool returns, how to filter, and that it is a safe operation without additional context.

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 100%, and both parameters already have clear inline descriptions and examples. The description's mention of 'filterable by technology or by slug' lightly reinforces the schema but adds no new meaning beyond it.

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 identifies the resource ('Justin's projects'), the context ('as case studies'), and the available filtering dimensions (technology or slug). It does not restate the tool name, and the resource is distinct from the sibling profile/contact tools, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 implies usage: use this tool to retrieve Justin's projects and filter them by tech or slug. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when filters should be used together versus separately.

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