whodb_platform_project_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the workspace argument targets only this call without changing session defaults, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about result shape, aggregation, or pagination limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded before the targeting detail, and every clause earns its place.

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 read-only summarization tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and targeting adequately. It could go further on what the summary contains or how resources are counted, but nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, including the nested workspace object. The description restates the workspace {host, org, project} triple without adding syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Summarize resources in the selected project') and adds a purpose ('governance and deletion planning'). It distinguishes itself somewhat by scoping to the project, but it never names siblings like whodb_platform_org_resources, whodb_platform_deleted_resources, or whodb_platform_user_owned_resources, which is a notable gap given the crowded resource-adjacent family.

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 implies usage via 'for governance and deletion planning' and explains the per-call workspace targeting, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative tools. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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