todoist_get_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get projects' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or if there are rate limits. The lack of such details makes it inadequate for a tool with potential data access implications.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key features without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., project details, error handling) or behavioral aspects like permissions. For a data retrieval tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filtering and hierarchy information', which aligns with the schema but doesn't elaborate further. This meets the baseline for high 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 action ('Get projects') and mentions optional filtering and hierarchy information, which distinguishes it from simple list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'todoist_get_tasks' or 'todoist_get_project_sections', which reduces specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'todoist_get_tasks' or 'todoist_get_project_sections'. The description mentions optional features but doesn't specify scenarios where filtering or hierarchy information is beneficial, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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