project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation and 'with stats' hints at the returned information, but the description does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention any permissions or side effects. This is adequate for a simple listing tool, but not fully transparent.

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 concise: one front-loaded sentence plus a single parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and there is 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent how to request all projects or a specific one, and the output schema covers return values. It doesn't elaborate on edge cases or alternative tool routing, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter's semantic meaning: 'project: Specific project ID, or None for all projects.' This goes beyond the schema's type/default information and clarifies the all-vs-specific behavior.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List registered projects with stats.' The parameter line clarifies that it can target one project or all projects. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the resource and action are specific enough that an agent can generally identify its purpose.

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 clear structural usage guidance: pass a project ID or None for all projects. However, it does not explain when this tool should be preferred over siblings like search or graph_query, and it provides no when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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