get_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the batch nature and return contents, but lacks mention of error handling for invalid IDs, ordering, or explicit read-only status. 'Fetch' implies safety, but not explicitly stated.

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 no filler. It front-loads the action and efficiently covers purpose, return details, and rationale for preference.

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 single-parameter batch read, the description covers the core purpose, expected return content, and efficiency advantage. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., partial failures, missing IDs) but is largely complete given the schema's parameter detail and absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (projectIds) with format and max items, so description adds little extra meaning. The phrase 'by their IDs' reinforces but does not enrich beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Fetch'), resource ('multiple projects by their IDs'), and scope ('single batch request'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_project by highlighting efficiency, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool over get_project ('More efficient than calling get_project multiple times'), naming the alternative. However, it does not mention exclusions or other siblings like list_projects/search_projects, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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