query_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions multi-value filter acceptance and folder-awareness. It does not cover auth requirements, destructive potential, rate limits, or other behaviors, leaving significant 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 concise, uses structured tags, and is front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, though it could be more precise about parameter behavior.

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 9 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, default behaviors, and edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only addresses multi-value parameters (folder_ids, folder_names, kinds) noting they accept list or string, but ignores other parameters like name_query, regex, include_closed, limit, etc., providing insufficient guidance.

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 states 'Search/filter projects with folder-aware metadata,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It indicates folder-awareness, distinguishing it from general list tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings like query_folders.

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 [Related] section lists sibling tools, implying when alternatives might be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs others, or when not to use it. The note on multi-value filters provides some usage detail.

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