multi_project_report

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait by labeling the tool as 'READ-ONLY', which is valuable since no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention the report structure, grouping logic, or any other behavioral details. This is only partial transparency for a 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the safety signal 'READ-ONLY' and directly stating the purpose. There is no filler or redundancy, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the report contains, how projects are grouped, how 'completions' are determined, or any output structure. An agent would lack essential context to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by referencing the three report categories (active work, testing, completions), which loosely maps to parameters like in_progress_match and testing_match, but it does not deepen understanding beyond the schema.

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 purpose: to collect a unified report on active work, testing, and completions for multiple projects. It uses a specific verb ('collect') and specifies the resource ('unified report') and scope ('multiple projects'), distinguishing it from narrower sibling tools like tasks_in_progress or tasks_completed_period.

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 a usage context: when a multi-project aggregated report is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'for multiple projects' phrase provides some guidance, but it lacks explicit exclusions.

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