project-all

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and consistency. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, filtering, or side effects). No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely short (just the path), which is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded but provides no natural language explanation. The brevity may hinder understanding for agents expecting descriptive text.

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 no parameters and simple read-only behavior, the description is functional but minimally complete. It does not describe the return format or any query options. Without an output schema, the agent must guess the response structure.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description adds nothing about parameters, but there are none to document. Baseline is 4 for no parameters.

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 'GET /project.all' clearly indicates a verb (GET) and resource (project.all), implying listing all projects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project-one (single project) and project-create (creation). However, it is a minimal path expression rather than a full sentence.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include project-allForPermissions, project-search, project-create, etc., but the description provides no context on when to choose this over those. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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