cx

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds modest value by signalling that the payload is reference/context data (assignable people, project custom fields) rather than records, but it says nothing about result shape, size, or whether custom fields require a valid project id.

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?

A single compact sentence with no padding, and the resource enumeration is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the enumeration substitutes for a clear leading verb, so the reader has to infer the action from the list.

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?

This is a low-complexity, two-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it leaves the core question — what the tool actually does with these categories and when to reach for it — unanswered, which is a clear gap even at this complexity level.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the OPENPROJECT_PROJECT default and the 'todos' sentinel. The description merely re-lists the same enum categories and adds no syntax, default, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 enumerates the resource categories available (account/instance, projects, statuses, types, priorities, members, versions, custom fields), which tells an agent what data domain this covers. However, it never states a verb — nothing says whether it retrieves, lists, or caches this context — and it draws no boundary against the cryptic siblings (ls, find, rd). The purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when to call cx versus ls or find, no prerequisite that a project must exist, and no note that this is a bootstrap/metadata call typically made before other operations. The agent must guess from the enum alone.

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