Projects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe non-mutating call, so the description need not restate that. It does add the useful fact that each entry carries a document count, implying a small summary payload rather than full content. It does not disclose ordering or whether projects with zero documents are included.

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 short sentences with no filler; the resource and its distinguishing content come first and the selection guidance second. Only quibble is the slight terseness of the first sentence, which omits a verb.

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 the description is not obliged to describe return values, and it only needs to convey scope and intent. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool this is close to sufficient; only ordering/pagination behavior is unstated.

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 tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description's mention of the `project` filter is about a sibling tool (search), not this one, so it adds no parameter meaning here and cannot exceed the baseline.

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 concrete resource (projects held in memory) plus the payload (document count per project), which is more than a restatement of the name 'Projects'. It is distinguishable from the generic siblings (get, delete, search, list_docs) by virtue of being a zero-argument enumeration with counts. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly gives the use case: consult this to pick the `project` filter value for search. That routes the agent to the right sibling at the right moment. It stops short of the full 5 because it gives no when-not guidance (e.g. that it should not be used to retrieve document content).

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