asana_portfolio_rollup

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing that it makes one task-list call per project, that caps are reported rather than silently applied, and that results are sorted. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences pack the core functionality, scoping modes, performance implication, and cap-handling behavior without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and the key behavioral note about caps is included.

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 no output schema, the description still specifies the return content (per-project counts and status, sorted by overdue) and details the three scoping strategies plus defaults. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly and understand the result shape.

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 five parameters. The description reiterates the role of projects, portfolio_gid, and max_projects but adds minimal new semantic information beyond the schema. 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 identifies a specific composite operation: per-project health across portfolios, enumerating the exact metrics (incomplete, overdue, completed-in-window counts + status) and ordering (by overdue). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly labeling it as a portfolio rollup composite, which is clear and unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance on scoping: explicit projects are 'best', fallback to portfolio_gid, then default to workspace projects with a cap. It explains the default behavior and the cap. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like board_rollup, but within its own scope it tells the agent how to choose the input mode.

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