list_project_texts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: returning key metadata fields, case-insensitive substring filtering on designation, and a default limit of 50. This goes beyond a bare statement of purpose, though it does not mention pagination, ordering, or error behavior. Given the output schema exists, the missing return details are less critical.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary in the first line followed by a concise Args list. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition of schema information or 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?

For a simple list operation with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter meanings, and key behavior (case-insensitive filter, default limit). It does not discuss pagination or sorting, but these are not necessarily required given the output schema exists and the tool's scope is narrow.

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, and it does fully. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: project is an ORACC project identifier, query is an optional case-insensitive substring filter on designation, and limit is the max texts to return with a default of 50. This is exactly the kind of meaning the raw schema cannot convey.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List texts in a project's catalogue with key metadata'. This clearly distinguishes it from list_projects and get_project_metadata, and 'key metadata' implies it returns catalogue-level information rather than full text. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from search_project, leaving some potential 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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when you need a list of texts with metadata from a project catalogue. The parameter descriptions add context about filtering and limiting. There are no explicit exclusions or references to alternatives, but the core use case is clear enough for an agent to choose it over obvious siblings like list_projects or get_text.

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