get_staff_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the return structure but does not mention read-only nature, error handling, authentication requirements, or behavior for missing staff. Minimal disclosure beyond basic purpose.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part adds value: action, resource, output elements. Optimal length for clarity.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (date range and duration). Lacks handling of edge cases (no projects, staff not found) but overall sufficient for typical 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 coverage is 100% for a single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own description ('Staff member name. Partial names match; the first match is used.'). 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 action ('list'), resource ('projects a staff member is booked on'), and returned information ('date range and duration in days'). It distinctively identifies the tool's purpose among siblings like get_staff_collaborators or get_my_schedule.

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 usage when a staff member's project assignments are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_my_tasks, get_project_team). No exclusions or selection criteria are mentioned.

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