Projects List Assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds essentially nothing beyond those hints: no pagination behavior, no result volume, no ordering, and no auth/permission context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its efficiency is genuine, though the extreme brevity means it under-specifies rather than being optimally tight.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the tool has 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage and the description omits pagination and date-range semantics entirely. For a list tool with date filtering, the description is materially incomplete.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at user/project filtering (mapping to user_id and project_id) but says nothing about the pagination params (page, per_page) or the date-range params (from_date, to_date), leaving 4 of 6 parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (resource scheduling assignments) plus its scope (across projects or filtered by user/project). This distinguishes it from the single-record projects_get_assignment sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'filtered by user/project' implies the retrieval scenarios, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative tools like projects_get_assignment for a single record. Usage must be inferred.

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