List Clockify projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Lists projects in a workspace', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention default filtering (e.g., archived projects excluded), pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The schema documents parameters but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 core function, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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 is simple with three optional parameters, but no output schema exists, so the description should convey what the tool returns. It does not mention that it returns a list of project objects with IDs and names, nor any default behavior like whether archived projects are included by default. The use case gives some context, but the description remains incomplete for an agent relying solely on it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, though the use case hints at wanting project IDs. Since the schema adequately describes each parameter, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource ('projects in a workspace'), immediately identifying the tool's function. It also adds a concrete use case ('map a git repo or task to a Clockify project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_workspaces.

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 statement 'Use to map a git repo or task to a Clockify project' provides a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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