Listar proyectos de OpenProject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that projects are 'obtained', implying a read operation but providing no details on pagination, filtering, data volume, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, complete sentence that efficiently states the tool's function without any redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide a fuller picture of what is returned (e.g., a list of project objects, their fields, or potential errors). It is also redundant with the sibling 'project_list', yet provides no distinguishing information. For a zero-parameter read tool, minimal is typical, but the lack of any output details or usage context makes it incomplete.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them (vacuously). The description mentions 'available' projects, which adds slight semantic nuance beyond the schema, but since there are no params, the baseline of 4 is appropriate and the description does not detract.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves projects from OpenProject, using a specific verb ('obtiene') and resource ('proyectos'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'project_list', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it loses a point for not establishing distinctiveness point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'project_list' or 'project_use'. The description offers no context on prerequisites, use cases, or restrictions, leaving the agent to guess which tool to invoke among overlapping siblings.

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