list_pending_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires any permissions. The optional filter is mentioned but no side effects or behaviors.

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, concise sentence front-loading the core purpose and adding a relevant filter option. 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks explanation of 'backlog projects', pagination, or how the filter affects results. Adequate for a simple list tool but leaves some gaps.

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 one parameter with 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds meaning by listing possible filter values (idea|planned|in_progress|done). This compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'list' and the resource 'backlog projects', and mentions an optional filter. However, 'backlog' is not explicitly defined, and the tool name uses 'pending', causing slight ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_pending_project' and 'update_pending_project'.

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 filter options but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_jobs' or 'analyze_trends'. There is no mention of prerequisites or use cases.

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