Query projects

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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds that results include review metadata and stalled detection, but it does not explain pagination behavior or the meaning of 'stalled' beyond what the view parameter schema already states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and the two distinguishing features efficiently.

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 read-only annotations and an output schema, default calls are safe and understandable. However, given 11 parameters, low schema coverage, and no guidance on filter combinations or view/output behavior, the description is only minimally complete for more nuanced use.

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 only 18%, so the description needed to compensate for the 11 parameters. It does not explain limit, cursor, output, search, status, sort_by, or folder/project filters. The phrase 'stalled detection' maps to the view enum, but most parameter semantics are left to inference.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), and adds distinctive scope: review metadata and stalled detection. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like query_tasks and query_folders.

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 resource 'projects' makes the basic use case clear, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over query_tasks, count_tasks, or query_folders. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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