list_backlog_buckets

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those annotations: the OpenProject Backlogs module and version requirement, the not-found response for unavailable instances, and the pagination caveat that total is page-local and callers should page until next_offset is null.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the paragraphs separate scope, availability, and pagination concerns. It is somewhat long for a list tool but mostly earns its space by clarifying non-obvious pagination and availability behavior.

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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical context: module/version availability, project scoping, search filtering, and pagination behavior including the page-local total caveat. It does not fully describe the returned item structure, but the select schema lists available fields and the key return semantics are explained.

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 high at 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantics: search is by name, project omission means all visible projects while passing it narrows to one project, and offset should follow next_offset during pagination. The remaining parameters are largely covered by the schema itself.

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 and resource: 'List Backlogs backlog buckets', and adds that it can be filtered by name search. It clearly implies listing versus getting a single bucket, though it does not explicitly name the sibling get_backlog_bucket as the alternative.

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?

It explains the key scoping choice: omitting project lists across all projects, while passing project restricts to one project. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_backlog_bucket or other listing tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than fully resolved.

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