Get Portfolios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: the owner parameter is mandatory (despite no schema required) and the return type is an array of portfolio objects. It does not contradict annotations, and it provides value beyond the structured hints.

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 sentences, with the main action stated first and the critical warning second. No filler or redundant content. The structure is efficient and front-loaded, ideal for quick comprehension.

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 tool's moderate complexity (pagination via limit/offset, optional fields, workspace filter) and the rich annotations, the description covers the essential usage trap and return type. It doesn't explain pagination behavior, but the schema already documents offset/limit. For a list operation with strong annotations, this is adequate, though it could mention pagination in plain language.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the owner requirement already documented in the schema, adding only the phrase 'Bad Request error' and the example 'owner: 'me''. This is minor additional emphasis, not new semantic meaning. Other parameters (limit, offset, workspace, opt_fields) are fully covered by the schema, and the description doesn't add further detail.

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 resource ('portfolios') with a scope ('in a workspace'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling asana_get_portfolio (singular) and mutation tools like create/update/delete. The sentence is direct and unambiguous.

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 key usage guidance: the owner parameter is required and omitting it causes a Bad Request, with a recommended value 'me'. It implies this tool is for listing, not fetching a single portfolio, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool.

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