search_projects_by_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: case-insensitive matching and partial matching. 'Find' also implies a read-only search operation)Skip. It could add more about limits or error behavior, but for a simple search tool the essential behavior is covered.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and scope, examples come immediately after, and the useful query-context sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 single-parameter search tool, the description covers matching behavior and intended use. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. It could more explicitly state the search scope (e.g., all of Ayush's projects), but the usage hint makes this reasonably clear.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define the parameter. It does so thoroughly: 'technology' is explained as a technology or tool, with concrete examples and additional matching semantics (case-insensitive, partial match). This exceeds the bare type/title in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find all projects that use a given technology or tool.' It includes concrete examples and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_projects by emphasizing stack-based filtering.

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 a concrete use case: answering 'does Ayush have experience with X?' This clearly communicates when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is evident.

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