query_search_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose return behavior, matching semantics, pagination, or potential errors. The one-liner gives no detail beyond the basic intent, leaving the agent guessing about results and side effects.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word is useful, and there is no extraneous 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?

Despite the simple schema, the description leaves gaps: no return format, no usage guidance, and no differentiation from project_list beyond the name/type filter. For an agent to properly invoke and interpret results, it needs more context, making this incomplete.

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 100% (query has a description). The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that the query can match by name or type, which the schema description does not specify. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the plain 'Search query string'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('projects'), and specifies the criteria ('by name or type'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_list (list all) and project_get (retrieve by ID). This gives a precise scope of operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state whether to use it for quick lookups, how it differs from project_list, or any exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context for selection.

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