search_hex_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON string with matching projects') and pagination behavior via offset/limit parameters, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no matches are found. It provides basic behavioral context but misses important operational details.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then organized parameter explanations, then return value. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste. The Args/Returns formatting enhances readability without verbosity.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has gaps. It explains parameters well and states the return format, but doesn't describe the structure of returned projects, error handling, or operational constraints. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, it should provide more complete context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: search_pattern ('Regex pattern to search for in project titles'), limit ('Maximum number of projects to return'), and offset ('Number of projects to skip for pagination'). It adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, including default values and semantic context.

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 with a specific verb ('Search for') and resource ('Hex projects'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'regex pattern matching on project titles' - unlike list_hex_projects which presumably lists all projects without filtering.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to search projects by title pattern) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It distinguishes from list_hex_projects by mentioning pattern matching, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison guidance.

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