get_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no permissions, or is safe to call. A more transparent phrasing like 'This read-only operation returns...' would improve this.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, scope, and a key output feature in minimal space, which is ideal for a simple 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 list tool with an output schema available, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does and the key detail of stable IDs. No additional information (pagination, errors, etc.) is needed given the simple nature and existing output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds value by stating the output includes stable IDs, giving the agent useful expectations without needing to inspect the output 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 verb 'List', the resource 'all Things projects', and adds a specific output detail (stable IDs). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_todos or get_inbox by naming the exact resource type.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'when you need to fetch projects' or 'use get_todos for tasks'). The context of the sibling list implies it, but no direct or indirect usage suggestion is present.

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