find_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fuzzy-search behavior and the return format (ranked matches with IDs and workspace existence), which is substantive for a search tool. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but for a read-only search, the provided details are sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return details. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy or 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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the use case, return value, and search mechanism. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 describes 'query' simply as 'Search text.' The description adds that the query matches by title or ID, providing meaningful semantic context beyond the schema and clarifying what kinds of text are acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb 'fuzzy-search' and names the resource 'known projects', explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects. It also clarifies the search keys (title or ID) and what is returned, making the tool's function crisp and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need to search for a specific project rather than listing all projects (sibling list_projects). It does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives, but the contextual contrast with sibling tools is clear from the search phrasing.

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