direct_project_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does state 'READ-ONLY,' which is a key safety trait. However, it does not explain how the include_archived parameter affects behavior, what 'live' means, or any details about permissions or return format.

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 that conveys the core purpose and safety profile efficiently. However, 'projects.json' is somewhat cryptic, and the structure could be improved by separating the mapping rules from the live list explanation.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the output format, the role of the include_archived parameter, or how this relates to sibling tools like direct_register_project_campaign. The missing parameter information and lack of differentiation guidance make it incomplete.

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 0%, and the description fails to mention the include_archived parameter. The phrase 'non-archived list' only hints at the default behavior, leaving the parameter's effect and semantics unclear.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies a unique resource: 'campaign→project mapping rules (projects.json) + live non-archived list.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like direct_list_campaigns or direct_register_project_campaign.

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 includes 'READ-ONLY,' which clearly signals that this tool is for viewing without mutation. It provides a clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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