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. It discloses that the tool returns 'all projects' and lists the data fields included, which adds useful context about scope and output. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, permissions, or error handling, which are important 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of return data that adds necessary detail without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient, with no wasted words.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the scope ('all projects') and output fields, which complements the structured data. However, it could improve by addressing usage guidelines or behavioral aspects like data freshness or limits.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no filtering or arguments by stating 'Get all projects.' This aligns well with the schema, earning a baseline score above 3 due to the zero-parameter context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all projects with basic information.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('projects'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_pages or get_tasks by focusing on projects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., 'get_filtered_projects'), which keeps it from 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like quick_search or get_recent_activity, leaving the agent to infer usage based on context alone.

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