Projects overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds behavioral details such as sorting by hours logged and specifying output fields (client, budget burn, unbilled amounts), providing additional context beyond 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with '[timely] What's on my plate?' followed by a clear list of outputs. Every word is informative, with no wasted 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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and output fields. However, it omits guidance on the include_inactive parameter, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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%, meaning the parameter include_inactive has no description in the schema. The tool description does not mention this parameter or explain when to set it to true, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 tool returns every project with client, logged hours, budget burn, and unbilled amounts, sorted by hours logged. It specifies the resource (projects overview) and the action (list/retrieve), making it distinct from sibling tools like time_spent and work_log.

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 implies usage through '[timely] What's on my plate?' suggesting a quick overview, but it does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives or conditions when not to use it.

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