fcp_get_projects

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states 'Get projects'—a read operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits, leaving a significant 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?

Description is short and to the point, with an 'Args' section. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured with a clearer separation of purpose and parameters.

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?

With an output schema present and a simple tool (one optional parameter), the description covers the basic behavior: retrieving projects filtered by event or all. It is adequate for the complexity.

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 description explains the single parameter 'event_name' is optional and acts as a filter, adding meaning beyond the schema (which has no description). However, it only minimally compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 projects in an event (or all events if name not specified)', providing a specific verb and resource with scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fcp_get_events which retrieves events.

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 when to use (filtering by event or getting all), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of distinction from other project tools.

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