list_project_children

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 states it's a list operation, implying it's read-only, but does not address potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with project hierarchies.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a 'child project' (e.g., direct descendants only), how results are returned, or any error conditions. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this minimal description is insufficient.

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, with 'projectId' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints on valid project IDs. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 ('List') and resource ('all child projects of a project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_project_tasks', which could cause confusion about scope.

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 'list_projects' (which might list all projects) or 'list_project_tasks' (which lists tasks within a project). It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for its use.

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