Zephyr: Get Projects

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains server-side truncation, that maxResults may be lowered by the server, and that the response's maxResults field must be checked to confirm actual returned count. This is genuinely useful operational detail not present in the annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear title, parameter breakdown, and examples. The examples are helpful but somewhat verbose for an API description; the 'Expected Output' lines add marginal value. Still, the information is organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 is a simple paginated list operation with an output schema present, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers pagination behavior, defaults, and server-side truncation caveats. It does not mention sorting or filtering, but for a simple 'get all projects' listing, the provided guidance is sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter details and adds three concrete examples, which reinforce usage but do not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 verb and resource: "Get details of projects in Zephyr." This is clear and aligns with the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'zephyr_get_project' (singular), which could fetch a single project, but the plural form and description imply a list operation.

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 pagination parameters and examples showing how to get the first projects or a range, which implies usage for listing projects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zephyr_get_project' or 'qtm4j_get_projects', 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.