Get Projects

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description is too brief to inform the agent about expected behavior.

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 a single sentence, very concise, and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note on the output or typical use case. Overall it is efficient.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what projects are returned, in what format, or if any filtering is possible. The tool lacks sufficient context for an agent to fully understand its outcome.

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 are no parameters, so the input schema covers all (100%). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the operation name, but as per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, reduced to 3 because no additional context is provided.

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 'Get the projects from env0' clearly states the verb (get) and the resource (projects), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with environments and deployments. It adds no detail beyond the name but is not misleading.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or when this tool is appropriate vs. siblings.

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