get_plan_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 mentions the output includes task summaries, which adds value, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has any side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The lack of any behavioral safety cues is a gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word contributes. No verbosity or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters and an output schema exists (not shown). The description mentions the task_summary object, which helps agents understand return values. However, it does not document the 'status' parameter's effect, nor any constraints like pagination or plan_id existence. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meanings. However, the description does not explain either 'plan_id' (beyond it being an identifier) or 'status' (its purpose or allowed values). The output shape is hinted at, but parameter semantics are missing.

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 the tool retrieves all projects for a specific plan, with task completion summaries. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('projects for a plan'), and distinguishes from siblings like search_projects (which search across plans) and get_project_details (single project).

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 implies usage for listing all projects under a given plan with summary counts, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like search_projects, or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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