fiken_list_projects

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

The description only states 'List projects for a company' without mentioning pagination, filtering parameters (page, pageSize, name, number, dates, completed), or any behavioral traits such as idempotency or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose key behavior.

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 redundant words, achieving conciseness. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, which is a trade-off but still earns 4 for structure.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits essential information about pagination, filtering, output format, and how to interpret results for a list operation.

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%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 tool lists projects for a company. It uses 'List' as verb and 'projects' as resource, distinguishing from 'fiken_get_project' which retrieves a single project. However, it does not explicitly mention the scope of listing all projects or hint at filtering capabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fiken_get_project' for a single project, or why to use list over other list tools. The context is implied but not explicit.

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