Get Projects for Review

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds sorting by next review date and filtering details, but does not disclose return format or pagination. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficiently structured: purpose sentence, then a bullet-like listing of args with defaults and constraints, examples, and return type. No wasted words, well-organized.

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, so description should explain return structure. It only mentions 'Array of projects needing review sorted by next review date' without field details. Contextually adequate for a simple filtered list but could specify project fields.

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% (all parameters described). The description repeats schema info and adds examples, clarifying 'daysAhead' as overdue vs. due. However, it provides minimal extra meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 it gets projects needing review based on next review date, with specific criteria (overdue or within days ahead). It distinguishes from siblings like omnifocus_list_projects by focusing on review status.

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 implicitly suggests use for review filtering, with examples showing different scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when alternatives like omnifocus_list_projects or omnifocus_get_project_tasks are better, missing explicit exclusions.

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