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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Add' implies a mutation, but nothing is said about permissions, duplicate-link handling, URL validation failures, or whether the created reference is returned — all material for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and its examples front-loaded; nothing is redundant or wasted.

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?

All three required parameters are documented in the schema and there is no output schema to explain, but for an unannotated mutation the description omits what a successful call produces and how failures (bad URL, unknown project) are surfaced.

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%, with url, name, and project_id all documented (project_id even points at list_projects). The description adds only the notion of 'reference' and does not elaborate on any parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (add) and resource (a reference / important link) and clarifies with concrete examples (dashboard, doc), so an agent understands exactly what is created. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like add_note or add_meeting, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus add_note, add_meeting, or add_todo_action, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The examples hint at the kind of content that qualifies, but selection guidance is left entirely to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation to a project timeline but does not describe side effects, permanence, permissions, or what happens on success.

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 wording. It communicates the action, target, and content scope efficiently.

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 simple create-style tool with fully described parameters, the description is adequate for invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain the mutation's behavioral implications and expected result.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a general sense of the meeting content and does not provide parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record a meeting on the timeline of a project.' It also clarifies the content scope as 'what was discussed and decided.' It is clearly distinct from purely note-like or todo-like siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to choose it over add_note, add_todo_action, or add_important_link.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether the note is appended to the end of the timeline, whether it is visible to other project members, what permissions or project membership are required, or what is returned on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single twelve-word sentence with no filler that front-loads the action and resource. It is arguably too terse to be fully efficient, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description is adequate to make the call. However, with no annotations and no statement about side effects or return behavior on a write operation, it stops short of complete.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the pointer to list_projects for project_id. The description adds only the framing that the note lands on a project timeline, which is a marginal gain over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('note') and clarifies the destination ('timeline of a project'), so the agent knows what is created. It does not differentiate this from the sibling creation tools (add_meeting, add_todo_action, add_important_link), though the resource noun ('note') does most of that work implicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus add_meeting, add_todo_action, add_important_link, or when to read the timeline with get_timeline first. Usage is only inferable from the resource name; no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the initial state ('starts as pending'), which is real behavioral information beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether the project must already exist, error behavior, or what is returned (an id?), leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the state detail following immediately. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 simple three-parameter creation tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the core action and resulting state. It still omits the return value (e.g., the new action's identifier) and any failure conditions, which matters because no output schema exists to fill that in.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including that project_id comes from list_projects. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (a to-do action within a project), and the parenthetical 'a to-do item' disambiguates from siblings like add_note and add_meeting. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 on when to use this versus add_note, add_meeting, or add_important_link, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid project_id from list_projects. The agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses result ordering (newest first), the content types included, and that `query` matches titles and descriptions. It omits permission/auth prerequisites, behavior for nonexistent projects, and how paging beyond `limit` works, so the behavioral picture is only partially filled in.

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?

Two short sentences, zero redundancy, with the core read operation and its ordering front-loaded before the optional search hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 four-parameter read tool with one required field, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, in what order, and how search narrows results. Only default-result-scope and pagination guidance are missing, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for `query` by naming the fields searched (titles and descriptions) which the schema does not specify. It adds nothing for `type` or `limit`, which the schema fully documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read the timeline of a project"), enumerates the entry types returned, and specifies ordering ("newest first"). This clearly separates it from the write-oriented siblings (add_note, add_meeting, add_todo_action) and from list_projects.

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 second sentence tells the agent how to trigger search behavior, but never states when this tool is the right choice versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb "Read" and the project scope.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the word "List". It does not say whether results are paginated, whether all projects or only favorites/active ones are returned, whether ordering is guaranteed, or what permission scope is required.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope followed by the intended use. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a "project" record contains beyond an id (e.g., name, status), leaving the agent to discover the response shape by trial. Adding that one clause would make it complete.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the Planeshift projects of the current user"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling create-style tools (notes, meetings, todos, links). It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource scope is unique enough that no confusion is likely.

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?

"Use it to find a project id" tells the agent the concrete situation that selects this tool, which is more than a generic listing description. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative lookup path, but the context is clear.

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