keyso_get_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 does include 'Method: GET', which implies a read-only operation and suggests no side effects, but it does not state this explicitly nor mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the endpoint returns sensitive data. The minimal information is insufficient for an agent to fully assess behavior.

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 three short lines: a purpose statement, the HTTP method, and the path. It front-loads the purpose and avoids superfluous text. The example request is redundant with the path but not harmful. Slightly less polished than the ideal because of that redundancy, but still well-structured.

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?

For a simple list endpoint with no required parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to make the call (method and path), but it omits any indication of the response shape, such as whether it returns project IDs, names, or other fields. Given the large set of sibling tools that likely consume project IDs, this missing context makes it harder for an agent to chain calls effectively.

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 fully describes the two parameters (token and base_url) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since the schema already handles semantics, the baseline 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 explicitly states 'Список проектов' (List of projects) and provides the HTTP method GET and path /projects, which clearly identifies the operation as retrieving a list of projects. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like keyso_post_projects or keyso_get_projects_competitors, but the name and path make the resource and action unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely lists the endpoint and method without any context such as 'use this to enumerate all projects' or 'compare with keyso_post_projects for creation'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

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