revenuecat_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that results are limited to what “this key can read,” which is useful permission-scope context. It implies a read-only operation and states returned fields, but it does not cover pagination, empty results, or explicit safety 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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and its scope. Every clause contributes useful information: access scope, returned fields, and how to use the ID with another 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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential return fields (id and name), access scope, and a clear downstream use. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning ordering, pagination, or what happens when no projects are visible, but the core information is present.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent input semantics, and the empty schema already makes the parameter situation clear.

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 identifies a specific resource, RevenueCat projects, and states the scope and return fields: projects this key can read with id and name. It also links the output to the `subscribers` sibling, though it does not explicitly use a verb like “list” or differentiate from all other siblings.

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 phrase “Use an id with `subscribers`” gives downstream context, implying this tool supplies project IDs needed by the subscribers tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to call this tool versus alternatives or describe prerequisites beyond that implication.

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