keyso_get_ai_tracker

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state Method: GET, which implies a read-only operation, and provides a request example, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior, response shape, or any other behavioral traits an agent would need to anticipate.

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 brief and front-loads the core purpose before giving method, path, and an example. Every line serves a purpose with no filler, though the summary line is more of a fragment than a complete sentence.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It omits return-value details, authentication context, pagination defaults, and any guidance on how the optional parameters affect the returned project list.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters including page, per_page, token, search, and base_url. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the example URL, and since the schema handles semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource ('/ai_tracker') and the result ('список проектов'), and the Method: GET line supplies the verb. It is clear enough to understand that this tool lists AI Tracker projects, and it is implicitly distinct from siblings like get_ai_tracker_state or post_ai_tracker, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description gives endpoint details and an example URL but does not explain when this tool should be selected over related tools, when not to use it, or how it fits into a workflow such as listing projects before inspecting a specific one.

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