read_projects

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema by stating the active-by-default filter and mentioning the returned fields ('abbreviation and process'), which helps the agent predict output shape.

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 that front-loads the core action, then adds the most important qualifiers and output hints. Every piece earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the entity, default filtering, output fields, and the one filter option. It stops short of perfect completeness by not addressing pagination, ordering, or exact query matching, but those are minor for this scope.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does: 'optionally filtered by name' explains the query parameter, while 'active by default' implies the role of includeInactive. It does not spell out exact matching semantics or the precise effect of includeInactive=true, but it gives enough for correct use.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List projects', with clear qualifiers about active-by-default, output fields, and optional name filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling read_* tools that target other entities like comments, relations, or card data.

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 clearly implies usage context: call it to list projects, know that inactive projects are excluded by default, and use the query parameter to filter by name. It does not explicitly name alternatives among the many read_* siblings, so it falls short of the top score.

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