project_portfolio

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: ordering by nearest completion date with NULLs last, row content (schedule state, attributed_budget), summary coverage, and multi-borough matching. No contradictions.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though some could be tightened. It is efficient for the given complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description is thorough: it explains filtering, ordering, row content, summary details, and a behavioral nuance about borough matching. It is nearly complete for an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for several parameters (category, lifecycle_status, borough matching, agency_role default). It explains filtering logic and references list_categories, though not all parameters are fully detailed.

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 lists projects (PIDs) with filtering and ordering options. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it provides a cross-section listing with summary, not a budget breakdown or schedule detail.

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 lists filter parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rank_projects or get_project_budget. Usage is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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