Projekter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content context — that results include case numbers and what the user currently has checked out — but says nothing about scoping, filtering, or result size.

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 filler, and the identifying scope ('projects you can book on') is front-loaded before the payload description. Slightly clipped grammar costs it the top score.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields (case number, current holdings). It remains silent on whether the list is scoped to the calling user, whether it is paginated, and how it relates to booking flows, leaving real gaps for an agent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies this is a parameterless listing operation.

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 identifies the resource (projects available for pickup and booking) and the data they carry (case number, current holdings), which is more than a tautology. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment without an explicit verb ('retrieve/list'), and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as lager_bookinger or lager_aflever.

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 explicit statement of when to call this tool versus the many sibling tools (lager_bookinger, lager_tjek_ud, lager_flyt_projekt, etc.). The phrase 'du kan afhente til og booke på' only implies a booking-related context, leaving the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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