tempo_get_projects

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which already covers the safety profile. The description adds the paginated-list behavior and the 'all' scope, but does not disclose additional details like default pagination bounds or response shape. With the annotation present, this level is adequate.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Everything present is necessary and no redundant detail is included.

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 three well-documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It communicates the resource (projects), the pagination behavior, and scope, though it does not describe the return payload shape in detail—acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the low complexity.

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 100%, so the parameters (view, limit, offset) are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'paginated list', loosely implying limit/offset, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('paginated list of all Tempo Financial Manager projects'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like tempo_get_project (singular) and from all worklog/timesheet tools. The plural 'all projects' signals the list scope without ambiguity.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need the full project list, as opposed to tempo_get_project for a single project. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name the alternative, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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