list_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns project details without switching the current project, which is a important behavioral trait beyond the parameter schema. No contradictory or missing behavioral info for a read operation.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then key behavior, then argument list. No wasted words. Could be slightly more condensed but well-structured.

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 that the tool has an output schema and only two simple parameters, the description covers all necessary information: what the tool does, parameter behavior (including default for name), and a behavioral note about not switching project. No missing details for a read operation.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the description are nearly verbatim from the schema, adding no additional meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get information about a specific project by name' with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting that it returns details 'without switching the current project', which is a key behavioral distinction.

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?

Description provides minimal usage guidance, e.g., 'If no name provided, returns current project information.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project' or 'list_projects', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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