unanet_get_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation, but it claims to return 'all projects' while the schema includes a limit parameter defaulting to 50, implying potential truncation. It also does not mention how status filtering affects results or any pagination behavior, leaving key behaviors undisclosed.

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 concise, only eight words, and front-loads the core action. It is efficient and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two optional parameters, but conciseness itself is strong and the sentence is structurally sound.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of optional parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to use the limit or status filters, what the return value looks like, or that 'all projects' may be limited. This leaves critical context missing for an agent to correctly invoke the tool beyond its basic purpose.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' or 'status' parameters at all. Since the schema already provides basic definitions (types, enum, defaults), the description adds no additional meaning. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a list of all projects' from Unanet, which clearly indicates a list operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unanet_get_project_details and unanet_get_project_status, which target specific project details or statuses. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without mentioning contexts, exclusions, or comparing to the many sibling tools. The only implied usage is that it lists all projects, but no alternative scenarios are addressed.

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