metaculus_project_questions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only public projects are returned and that an invalid slug yields a 404. However, it does not explain the response format, pagination, or other behavioral details, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences, all meaningful: the first frames the tool, the second states its primary function, and the third notes the 404 error. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, scoping, and an error case. It lacks explicit mention of the return shape beyond 'normalized rows,' but given the simplicity and schema coverage, it is mostly 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (slug and limit) with 100% coverage. The description reinforces 'slug' but adds no new semantic detail about either parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 names the resource ('Metaculus question rows') and the action ('Returns') with a specific filter ('for one public project, filtered by its slug'), distinguishing it from other Metaculus tools like metaculus_questions or metaculus_tournament_questions.

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 implies usage when you have a project slug, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The phrase 'filtered by its slug' gives context, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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