List Hermes Atlas projects by curated list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the output is a 'ranked list' and enumerates valid slugs, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or return format. For a simple read operation, the implied behavior is adequate but not richly detailed.

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 sentence that states the action and then lists valid inputs. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and every element 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, read operation), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what the accepted inputs are, and what kind of output to expect ('ranked list of projects'). No essential information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by defining the 'slug' parameter as a curated list identifier and enumerating all valid values. This provides sufficient semantic grounding despite the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('ranked list of projects in a Hermes Atlas curated list'), clearly distinguishing itself from sibling tools like search_projects and get_project. The scope is well-defined by the enumerated slug values.

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 context on when to use the tool by listing valid slug values, which implies usage when one of those curated categories is needed. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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