angi_list_my_projects

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses that records are returned raw as Angi sends them and that recordFieldsVerified is false because no populated project has been observed. This provides crucial, non-obvious behavioral context about field reliability.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides an important caveat. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers what is returned, the scope, and a behavioral warning about field verification. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the note that field names should be read from data.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'status' parameter with its enum and default. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 (high schema coverage) applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists the signed-in user's Angi projects (service requests and bookings), both open and closed. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like angi_search_pros and angi_list_my_reviews.

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 context is clear: this tool is for fetching the current user's projects, which is distinct from searching or listing other resources. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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