file_under_project

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose that the tool may create a project if none exists and that the reply labels the result as new or existing. However, it omits permissions, matching logic, side effects, and what 'no path' means.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text and the find-or-create behavior is front-loaded. The phrase 'with no path' is slightly unclear but does not undermine the overall concision.

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 find-or-create mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what is being filed, how matching works, or the full return shape beyond the 'Filed under new/existing project' label.

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 documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for full 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 states a find-or-create action for non-coding projects, but it never says what is being filed under the project. The name implies assignment, yet the object of the assignment is missing, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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 use when you need to find or create a project, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like add_project or list_projects. There are no exclusions or alternative-selection rules.

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