readAsanaProject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that tasks can be arbitrary JSON objects, which hints at the return format, but it fails to disclose pagination, potential large result sets, response structure, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal information for a read tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant filler. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format or behavior. It only vaguely says tasks are arbitrary JSON objects, without details on pagination, response envelope, or how to handle multiple tasks. Given the sibling tool context, this is 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 100% (projectId has a clear description). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The parameter itself is straightforward and well-documented.

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 retrieves all tasks from a specified Asana project, using a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('all tasks from the specified Asana project'). This distinguishes it from readAsanaTask (which retrieves a single task), but it does not explicitly differentiate from listAsanaTasks, another sibling that likely lists tasks.

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 you need all tasks from a project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listAsanaTasks or readAsanaTask. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative pointers are given.

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