Search Projects

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 valuable behavioral context beyond those: fetches all projects (auto-paginated) then filters client-side (implying performance considerations), plus the default return shape (array with gid, name, resource_type). 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, implementation behavior, a practical usage tip, and return format. Front-loaded with the main verb+resource. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description is solid. It covers return format (necessary since no output schema exists), pagination/filtering behavior, and a list-all pattern. Minor gaps: no explicit performance caveat or error handling, but the client-side filtering mention sufficiently hints at the main caveat.

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% with rich parameter docs (regex examples, workspace GID guidance, default vs. extended fields). The description reinforces the '.' list-all tip and default fields, but adds little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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+resource+scope: 'Search for projects in a workspace by name using a regex pattern.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like asana_get_project (single project by GID) and asana_search_tasks (task search) by highlighting the regex approach and client-side filtering behavior.

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?

Provides clear usage context: regex pattern matching, listing all projects with '.' , and a cross-reference to asana_list_workspaces for the workspace GID. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use asana_get_project instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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