Find a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavior by noting it returns 'candidates' (multiple possible matches) with their ids, implying the need for disambiguation. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate a fuzzy-match result.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key value proposition. No wasted words, perfectly sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 low complexity (3 params, all well-documented), the presence of safety annotations, and the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function and result (candidates with ids). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, with detailed explanations for all three parameters (case-insensitive partial match, fallback behavior for workspace_id, include_archived). The description itself adds no further parameter detail, so the 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Looks a project up by name and returns the candidates with their ids.' It also explicitly frames the tool as the 'quickest way from what a person calls a project to what the API needs,' distinguishing it from listing or fetching by ID.

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: whenever you need to resolve a human-readable project name into an API id. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., clockify_list_projects, clockify_get_project) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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