Identify or create project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool may create a project (via the word 'creates'), which is a mutation, but it does not explain side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the project already exists, or what the return value is. For a tool that can mutate state, this is a significant gap, leading to a low score.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action and target. It is appropriately concise and free of redundant phrasing, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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?

With three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide extensive guidance. Instead, it only covers the general mechanism and leaves parameter usage, return values, and edge cases entirely undocumented. An agent attempting to call this tool correctly would lack essential information, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the parameters (cwd, name, description). 'Detects git context' hints that cwd might be used for detection, and 'creates a project' implies name/description are used when creating, but this is not explicitly stated. An agent cannot confidently determine how to populate these parameters from the description alone.

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 primary function: detecting git context and resolving or creating a project in the backlog API. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_projects and get_project, which read existing projects, while this tool ensures a project exists for the current context. The verb 'resolves/creates' is specific enough, but 'resolves' is slightly ambiguous—it could mean mapping context to an existing project or returning metadata. Still, the overall purpose is clear.

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 this tool should be used when you need a project to exist for the current git context, likely before creating or querying tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., 'use list_projects if you only need to view projects'). The guidance is implied rather than direct, so it earns a 3.

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