Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results follow the user's Settings order, and unfiled items live in an Inbox that is deliberately excluded from the list — a caveat an agent could otherwise misread as a data gap. No pagination or volume characteristics are mentioned, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both dense with information, and the identity/purpose clause is front-loaded before the usage guidance. The first sentence is long and packs ordering plus the Inbox exception into one clause, but no sentence is 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what is returned, the ordering rule, an important exclusion, and forward routing to dependent tools. Nothing material is missing for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by explaining what to do with the returned id (pass it as project to search_meetings or list_commitments), clarifying output semantics even though there is no input schema to annotate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List every project the user files recordings and notes under"), names the two fields returned (id, name), and specifies ordering. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_people or list_commitments, which cover different entity types.

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use triggers ("answer what the user is working on or to match a meeting to a project") and routes the agent forward by saying to pass an id as the project parameter to search_meetings or list_commitments. Both the use case and the downstream alternative are stated, not implied.

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