list_project_assignments

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source. It implies a read-only list operation but does not disclose potential pagination, authorization requirements, or data limits. The transparency is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences covering purpose and parameter. Every word is necessary; no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the tool's simplicity (one parameter, list operation), and the clear purpose statement, the description is mostly complete. Minor gap: no mention of ordering or filtering.

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%, and the description provides a brief explanation for the only parameter ('Harvest project ID.'), which adds some meaning beyond the raw type field. However, it lacks details on format or constraints.

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 'List' and clearly states the resource 'users assigned to a Harvest project' with additional detail 'with their rates and budgets.' This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_assignments' and 'get_assigned_people.'

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_assignments' or 'budget_status.' The description lacks explicit context for selection among siblings.

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