get_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. While 'fetches' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), error conditions, or what 'all projects' means in terms of scope or permissions.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple fetch operation and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'projects' are in this context, how results are structured, what authentication is required, or any limitations of the fetch operation. The agent would have significant gaps in understanding how to properly use this tool.

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 for both parameters, the description provides no information about the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. However, since there are only 2 parameters and they have default values in the schema, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation but doesn't make the situation worse.

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 ('fetches') and resource ('all projects from the GrowthBook API'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_experiments' or 'get_feature_flags' that also fetch different resources from the same API.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_experiments' or 'get_feature_flags' that fetch different data types from the same API.

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