project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists actions and their outcomes (e.g., 'auto-open' for create) but does not disclose potential side effects or safety implications (e.g., whether close saves changes). This is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 well-structured with sections for actions, args, returns, and examples. It is front-loaded with the summary line. Though somewhat lengthy, each part serves a purpose and is not excessively verbose.

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 CRUD nature and the presence of an output schema mention, the description covers the key functionality. It lacks some behavioral details and does not reference sibling tools, but for a tool with this complexity, it is fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining action-specific parameter requirements (e.g., name required for open/create) and providing examples that illustrate parameter usage in context.

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 it manages GNS3 projects and enumerates specific actions (list, open, create, close), making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its focus on project-level operations.

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 clear usage through examples and arg descriptions for each action. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings, such as project_docs for documentation-related tasks.

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