اتوماسیون، فیلدهای سفارشی و گردش‌کار پروژه

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations — that sections the project or plan lacks are omitted from the response, i.e. the result is partial rather than fixed-shape. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or size/volume of the returned catalogue.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the scope and then lists contents; the bilingual glosses (پارامترهای سفارشی, گردش‌کار) and the omission caveat all carry information. It is dense but nothing is obviously padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the payload contains and warning that absent sections are dropped. Combined with readOnly/openWorld annotations and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only permission/scope prerequisites are unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains project_id and points to mizito_list_projects as the source. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters is correct.

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 names a specific resource bundle ('everything automated in an advanced project') and enumerates the returned sections: automation rules/buttons, custom task fields, workflows, request forms, task templates, and the rule condition/action catalogue. This is far more specific than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like mizito_get_project or mizito_list_request_forms, though it never states an explicit verb or contrasts itself with those neighbours.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the project must be an advanced project with automation enabled), and no reference to an alternative tool. The only usage-adjacent statement is the output caveat about omitted sections, which is not selection guidance.

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