rx_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful default behavior: open projects only, up to 20 rows, and what mine=true returns.

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?

Front-loads the resource and returned fields, then usage and defaults. Four sentences with little waste, though some default information duplicates the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description names the key returned fields and row limit. Annotations cover read-only behavior, so the remaining gaps are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents mine, limit, query, stage, manager, and include_closed. The description repeats mine and the open-only default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource ('Проекты и инициативы Directum RX') and the fields it exposes (stage, state, manager, deadlines, completion). It also distinguishes itself from sibling rx_project by saying rx_project shows the project card.

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 says to use it for an overview of ongoing projects and for finding a project Id, and routes card lookup to rx_project. Defaults (open only, up to 20 rows) and the mine filter condition are stated.

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