autotask_search_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about default pagination (25 results per page) and the use of the page parameter, which helps understand operational traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly convey key information: the tool's purpose and pagination behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a search function with 6 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and pagination but misses critical details like return format, error conditions, or authentication needs. However, the high schema coverage mitigates some gaps, making it minimally adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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% description coverage, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how searchTerm works (e.g., partial matches) or providing examples for numeric filters like status. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('projects in Autotask'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like 'autotask_search_companies' or 'autotask_search_tickets', which would require mentioning unique aspects such as project-specific filters or context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other search tools in the sibling list or non-search tools like 'autotask_get_project_note'. It mentions pagination but lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to similar tools.

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