Search Projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results are paginated and include metadata, which are useful behavioral traits beyond the name. However, it does not detail the metadata contents or any edge-case behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then the behavior (pagination/metadata). No unnecessary words or repetition; every clause adds value.

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?

The tool has six optional parameters and no annotations, but the description covers the core purpose and result behavior, and the output schema exists. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke the tool and understand pagination. It lacks explicit alternative guidance, but the search context is clear.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions filtering by name, language, status, or tags, which overlaps with schema descriptions but adds no extra semantics. It does not clarify the 'ANY tag' behavior or the full-text query details, relying on the 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 tool's function: searching for projects by specific criteria (name, language, status, tags). It uses a specific verb ('search') and names the resource ('projects'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_project (single project) or search_logs (logs). The listing of filter criteria adds precision.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to find projects due to the listed criteria) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It gives clear context for usage without comparing to siblings or stating when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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