get_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'List'), and it explicitly mentions the 5-minute caching behavior which affects freshness of results. This goes beyond what the empty input schema provides.

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 clear, efficient sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose, the second adds important behavioral context about caching. Every word earns its place in this appropriately sized description.

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 list tool with 0 parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and key behavioral trait (caching). However, it could mention what information is returned about projects or how results are structured, though the output schema may cover this.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool does rather than how to call it.

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') and resource ('Basecamp projects'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_details' or 'get_todos' which also retrieve project-related information, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_details' for specific project information or 'get_todos' for project tasks. The cache mention hints at performance considerations but doesn't constitute usage guidance for tool selection.

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