get_project_contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It specifies the exact output fields, which is helpful, but it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, pagination, or error behavior. Since 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description is not misleading, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name and field list, earning a baseline score.

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 with zero fluff. The primary purpose leads, followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields, and ends with a practical cross-reference to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is entirely front-loaded for quick parsing.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient: it names the resource, enumerates the exact return fields, and even tells the agent how to proceed with the results. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the output is missing. The cross-reference to get_contract_hourly_rates further completes the workflow context.

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?

There is a single parameter, projectId, and the schema description already fully explains it as 'The project ID to list contracts for.' The description does not add any additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description correctly avoids redundancy.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (all contracts for a project), and enumerates the returned fields (contract ID, name, type, status, main contract flag), making it unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_contract_hourly_rates and get_fixed_price_contract_details. The inclusion of the contract type enum values adds precision. An agent can immediately determine what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool—when you need a list of a project's contracts—and explicitly tells the agent to use the returned contractId with get_contract_hourly_rates to get rates, which is a valuable follow-up path. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_fixed_price_contract_details for detailed fixed-price info, so it falls just short of exhaustive guidance.

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