foreignpolicy_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pagination behavior ('Returns one page', 'Follow next_page until it is zero') and implies a read-only, public listing. It does not explicitly state side effects or authentication needs, but the nature of a list operation makes these implicit. It adds value by explaining the enumeration workflow, which is more than a bare description would provide.

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 zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the pagination handoff to the sibling tool. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to grasp the core functionality immediately.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (project hubs), how to paginate, and what to do with the slugs (pass to foreignpolicy-project). Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the page parameter is already documented as '1-based project-directory page, defaults to 1'. The description adds the pagination concept but does not give additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Foreign Policy project hubs', and specifies it returns one page of the live public project directory. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling foreignpolicy_project by describing the workflow of passing a slug to that tool, making it unambiguous which tool to use for enumeration vs. detail.

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?

It provides a clear workflow: follow next_page until zero to enumerate slugs, then pass a slug to foreignpolicy-project. This gives strong context on how to use the tool and what to do with its output, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond foreignpolicy-project. The usage is implied through the pagination workflow, which is sufficiently clear for an agent.

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