search_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 for behavioral transparency. It only states the purpose and domain distinction, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, required preconditions (e.g., need for getCurrentOrganizationInfoFunc), or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation support.

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 efficient: a clear purpose line, a brief domain clarification, and two bullet-style use cases. No fluff, though the '[Project Management]' prefix and the parenthetical are slightly redundant. Overall it earns its place.

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 has 16 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It provides high-level use cases but does not guide the agent on how to combine filters or mention the need for user IDs via getCurrentOrganizationInfoFunc. The schema descriptions are rich, so the schema compensates partially, but the tool's complexity warrants more contextual guidance in the description.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself is quite detailed, including examples for extraConditions, so the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 'Search for Yunxiao Project List' with the verb 'search' and specific resource 'Project List'. It also distinguishes Project from code repository, and provides concrete use cases ('Query projects I am involved in', 'Query projects I have created'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_project.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool via the listed use cases (involved/created projects). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to get_project for a single project. Still, the use cases imply list searching rather than single retrieval, so it is clear enough with no exclusions.

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