todoist_get_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The mention of 'optional filtering and hierarchy information' hints at some behavior but lacks crucial operational details for a tool with no output schema.

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 immediately communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Get projects' establishes the action, 'with optional filtering' indicates parameterization, and 'hierarchy information' specifies additional capabilities. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'projects' are in this context, what data they contain, how hierarchy information is structured, or what the return format looks like. The agent would need to guess about the output structure and behavioral constraints.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'optional filtering' (which maps to project_ids) and 'hierarchy information' (which maps to include_hierarchy and include_sections), adding minimal semantic context beyond what the schema provides. 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'projects', making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies optional filtering and hierarchy information, which distinguishes it from simple listing operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'todoist_get_tasks' or 'todoist_get_project_sections', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when filtering by project IDs is appropriate versus using other tools, nor does it explain the relationship between this tool and sibling tools like 'todoist_get_tasks' or 'todoist_get_project_sections'. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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