manage_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool can 'manage' projects, implying potential write operations, but doesn't specify what management entails (e.g., creation, deletion, modification) or any behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic parameter handling.

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 French phrase ('Gérer et lister les projets indexés') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It could be slightly more structured by separating the two functions, but it remains appropriately concise without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (managing and listing projects with two parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'manage' involves, how results are returned, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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, clearly documenting both parameters with enums and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the context of 'indexed projects' or detailing the 'stats' action. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.

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 'Gérer et lister les projets indexés' states the tool manages and lists indexed projects, which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions two actions (manage and list) but doesn't clarify what 'manage' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_project'. The purpose is somewhat vague rather than clearly distinguishing this tool's unique function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't indicate scenarios for choosing 'manage_projects' over sibling tools such as 'update_project' for modifications or 'read_graph' for data retrieval. Without any context on usage timing or exclusions, the agent must infer from the tool name and parameters alone.

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