get_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that view=all is the default and that view=due_for_review targets overdue reviews, but it does not disclose other behaviors like result shape or pagination. This is a modest addition beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, and the key distinction between the two views is stated clearly.

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 read-only list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage options and default behavior. It doesn't detail return fields, but since it's a 'list projects' tool and annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their descriptions. The description reinforces the view parameter's purpose but does not add substantial meaning to status, folderName, includeOnHold, or includeReviewData beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'OmniFocus projects', clearly identifying what the tool returns. It distinguishes between two view modes (all vs due_for_review), which separates it from sibling tools like get_tasks that focus on tasks.

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 when to use each view parameter: view=all for status/folder filters, view=due_for_review for overdue review work. This gives clear context on how to choose between modes, though it doesn't explicitly compare against alternative tools. It is clear enough for most scenarios.

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