List projects by participant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read operation but does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or behavior when no projects are found.

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, concise sentence in Korean that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters and no output schema, and the description gives the core purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance, parameter context for apiKey/baseUrl, and any indication of the response shape, making it barely adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies participantId as the 'specific user' but does not explain apiKey or baseUrl beyond what their names imply. More guidance on these parameters is needed.

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 states a specific action ('retrieves') and a specific resource ('Flow projects in which a specific user participates'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects (all projects) and get_project_participants (participants of a 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 intended use case is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or get_project_participants. No exclusions or context are provided.

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