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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the write-enable prerequisite, which implies mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, whether notify controls email notifications, or how internal comments differ from public ones. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action and the key prerequisite.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how optional parameters behave. It only covers the core action and an environment variable, leaving behaviors like notification and internal visibility undocumented. Incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation of the four parameters; only 'comment' is inferable from the description. 'notify' and 'internal' are left unexplained, and 'id' is only obvious from context. This is a clear gap.

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 'Add a comment to a work package.' This is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create_work_package or get_work_package. The title reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires OPENPROJECT_ENABLE_WRITE=true'), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that comments are appended to an existing work package. The usage scenario is implied from the name but not clearly articulated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write requirement and the create action, which implies mutation. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions beyond the env var, or the response format, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that state the purpose and the key prerequisite. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about required fields, meaning of type_id/project_id, or what a work package entails, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use effectively.

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 description adds no information about any of the 11 parameters, and the schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage). Parameter names like type_id and status_id are ambiguous without explanation, and the description does not compensate by listing required fields or offering guidance.

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 'Create a work package' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (work package), and the title explicitly mentions OpenProject. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_work_package and search_work_packages, which are read/search operations.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires OPENPROJECT_ENABLE_WRITE=true') but does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. The purpose of creation is implied, but no explicit comparison to siblings like add_work_package_comment is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the scope (assigned to user). It does not mention pagination, filtering by status, sorting, or return format, which the parameters imply are configurable.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently uses the available space without any fluff.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to be considered complete. It lacks details on default behavior, result shape, and how parameters affect the outcome, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 schema provides zero descriptions for the 5 parameters, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any of them. An agent cannot infer what 'offset', 'status', 'sort_by', 'page_size', or 'project_id' control, making parameter semantics completely opaque.

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 work packages assigned to the configured OpenProject API user, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('work packages'). The phrase 'assigned to the configured OpenProject API user' distinguishes it from siblings like search_work_packages or get_work_package.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_work_packages or get_work_package. The description only states the basic function without any contextual cues, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic read operation. It does not mention what happens if the id is not found, the return format, or any potential errors, leaving the agent with only the inferred read-only nature of 'get'.

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 sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the core retrieval action. However, it lacks any mention of the return structure or how this tool relates to search/list alternatives, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 schema describes id as an integer with exclusiveMinimum 0, and the description merely says 'numeric id', which is redundant. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaningful context about the id parameter, such as what constitutes a valid work package id or where to find it.

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 fetches a single work package by numeric id. The verb 'Get' plus resource 'single work package' and scope 'by numeric id' unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like list_work_packages or search_work_packages.

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?

Usage is implied through 'single' and 'by numeric id', suggesting use when you have a specific work package ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_work_packages or get_my_work_packages, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the visibility scope but omits details about pagination, filtering, return format, or side effects, which are important for a list operation.

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 sentence of ten words, highly front-loaded with 'List projects'. It is concise without unnecessary words and earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four underexplained parameters, this description leaves a substantial information gap. It lacks any mention of filtering, sorting, pagination, or expected response structure, making it inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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% and the description does not mention any parameter meanings. The four parameters (offset, sort_by, page_size, custom_filters) are completely unexplained, so the description adds no value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('projects'), with a specific scope ('visible to the configured OpenProject API user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on work packages.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The description simply states the function without usage context, scoring low on this dimension.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'search with filters.' It does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, read-only nature, or any filter semantics, so the agent gets minimal behavioral insight.

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 only one sentence with no redundancy, which is concise, but the sentence is too generic to convey meaningful information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 10 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools that overlap in purpose, a one-sentence vague description is grossly inadequate. The agent cannot determine key behaviors, parameter requirements, or expected results.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. Parameter names like text, offset, status, and custom_filters are left entirely to inference, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 identifies the action ('search') and resource ('work packages') clearly, and the title reinforces this. It distinguishes from siblings like get_work_package and create_work_package, though the phrase 'common API v3 filters' is vague.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus get_my_work_packages or get_work_package. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context signals to help the agent choose correctly.

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