bort_project_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'краткая форма' usefully signals that the output is abbreviated, but it says nothing about default/pagination behavior for limit, result ordering, or whether the list is scoped to a caller. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.

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 compact line with the purpose front-loaded and filters enumerated after. No filler sentences; every clause carries information.

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 4 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers filter semantics adequately but omits limit/default behavior and any indication of what 'краткая форма' returns. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four params: status enum values (idea|active|paused|closed), priority range with semantic inversion (1 — критичный), and q meaning (search by name). Only limit is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Список проектов') plus a scope qualifier ('краткая форма'), which distinguishes it from bort_project_get and bort_project_update. However, it never names the sibling it is contrasted with, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 filter semantics imply when to use it (filtered listing across projects), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing to bort_project_get / bort_project_summary. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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