get_inferred_project_ids_evergreen

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the tool scans recent patches up to max_patches and sorts by activity, but does not mention potential performance implications of scanning up to 50 patches, error cases, or authentication details beyond the optional bearer token. These gaps are acceptable for a simple read operation.

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: the first clearly states the primary action and output, the second adds context about sorting and usefulness. There is no redundant or extraneous information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how it works (scanning recent patches), and why it's useful. It does not detail the output format or error handling, but the output schema likely covers format. For a read-only discovery tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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% according to context signals, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds value by explaining the sorting logic and the inference mechanism, but does not significantly expand on the schema's existing parameter descriptions. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of unique project identifiers inferred from the user's recent patches.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (project identifiers), and method (inferred from patches). The additional context about sorting by activity and usefulness for understanding project context distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_user_recent_patches_evergreen.

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for understanding project context and filtering other queries,' which implies when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools. The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative suggestions.

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