search_projects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses scope limitation ('public' projects only) and what projects contain, but omits safety confirmation (read-only nature), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling behavior.

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?

Two well-constructed sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action and scope (public CERN GitLab projects), followed by use-case context. The parenthetical explaining project contents adds value without verbosity.

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 100% schema coverage and simple flat structure, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and domain. Minor gap: no output schema exists, so a brief note about return format (list of projects with metadata) would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline of 3. Description mentions the three primary filter parameters (keywords, topics, language) but adds no syntax guidance, example values, or semantic context for the sorting/pagination parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (search), resource (public CERN GitLab projects), and searchable fields (keywords, topics, programming language). It distinguishes from siblings like search_code and search_issues by specifying it finds 'projects' rather than code snippets or issues.

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?

Provides context on when to use ('discovering HEP code, analysis frameworks, and physics tools'), but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling search tools like search_code, search_issues, or search_lhcb_stack regarding when to use each search modality.

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