create_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 main action and output format (XML) but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, error handling, or whether it overwrites existing files. Adequate but with notable 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 short, efficiently front-loading the purpose and then detailing parameters in a structured bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's function, output format, and parameter details adequately. However, it omits information about return values and error scenarios, leaving some contextual gaps for a creation tool of moderate 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: name, start_date (format), tasks (list objects with fields), and out (must end in .xml). It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though some task fields are only listed without full explanation.

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 creates a project from scratch and writes an XML file for ProjectLibre. It uses a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('project'), and distinguishes from sibling tools which are sub-operations like add_task or assign_resource.

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. The description implies use for new project creation but does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, such as for modifying existing projects.

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