getPuzzleProjectList

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose that results are paginated, status-filterable, and optionally narrowed by projectId or activityCoin, plus the status value semantics. However, it does not describe response contents, ordering, error behavior, or auth expectations, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.

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 first sentence is an excellent front-loaded summary, and the agent hint is useful, but the same facts (list Puzzle activities, status filter, projectId, cursor/limit) are covered twice in the description and hint, creating 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 five-parameter list endpoint with no annotations or output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: required status, optional filters, and pagination mechanism. It lacks a return-shape mention and explicit alternative routing, but these are minor for this simple list operation.

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 supply meaning, and it does: status values are mapped to upcoming/ongoing/ended, projectId is identified as the project code to use for lookups, and cursor/limit are tied to pagination. activityCoin is explained only by its name ('narrow results by ... activity coin'), and the limit default/maximum is left to the schema, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 declarative: 'Returns a paginated list of Puzzle activities filtered by status,' naming a concrete resource (Puzzle activities), the operation (list), and the primary constraint (status). It is easily distinguishable from the many sibling project-list tools such as getLaunchpoolProjectList and getTokenSplashProjectList because 'Puzzle activities' is a distinct domain, and the optional filters are named.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: to browse available Puzzle activities or look up details of a specific project. The agent hint adds operational guidance on filtering by status, passing projectId, and using cursor/limit for pagination. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, which would elevate it further, but the use cases are clear.

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