Get Portfolio Items

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape (array of project objects with specific fields), which is not obvious from annotations. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or the potential need for multiple calls despite the schema exposing limit/offset.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place. The primary action is front-loaded, the return format is stated, and a related tool is cross-referenced. No wasted words or redundant repetition of schema 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations. The description provides a clear return type and fields, which is essential given no output schema. However, the phrase 'List all projects' could overpromise given the limit/offset pagination parameters, though the schema compensates. Overall, sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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%, so the description is not required to explain parameters. The only marginal addition is the mention of specific fields (gid, name, color, archived) which partially overlaps with opt_fields, but it doesn't clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('List all projects in a portfolio') and the resource (portfolio items). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like asana_get_portfolio (which likely gets portfolio details) and asana_search_projects (searching across workspaces). The return format is also specified, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions asana_add_portfolio_item for adding projects, which is a complementary action rather than an alternative for listing. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context on when this tool is preferred over other listing/search tools are given.

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