getProjects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List projects' implies a read operation but discloses no behavioral details such as whether it returns all projects, supports pagination or filtering, or has any side effects. The return format and potential limitations are unmentioned.

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 with only two words, which is efficient but under-specified for the tool's complexity. It lacks any meaningful structure or front-loaded important details, so it earns a middle score.

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?

Given the complex schema with many filters and no output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use filters, pagination, or any other behavioral context needed for correct invocation by an AI agent.

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 has numerous parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of them. It does not mention pathParams (format) or queryParams (id, status, include, etc.), leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid calls.

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 'List projects' clearly states the action (list) and resource (projects), and the plural form distinguishes it from the singular 'getProject' sibling. However, it adds little beyond the tool name and does not specify scope or filtering capabilities, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like getProject, getIssues, or createProject, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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