list_initiative_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of Project objects and that it accepts optional pagination params, giving useful context. However, it does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or edge cases (e.g., behavior for invalid initiative_id, whether linkage is direct or recursive). The read-only nature is implied by 'List,' but not explicitly stated.

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 compact and well-structured with an Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or repetition. It directly conveys the core behavior and parameters in a digestible manner.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, required and optional parameters, and return type. Given the output schema exists, further detail on return values is unnecessary. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention behaviors like pagination defaults or error conditions for full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes initiative_id as 'UUID of the initiative' and params as 'Optional query parameters (e.g., per_page, cursor)', adding concrete meaning beyond the raw schema types. This is helpful for an agent to know what to pass.

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 tool's purpose: 'List projects linked to an initiative.' The verb 'List' and the specific resource 'projects linked to an initiative' distinguish it from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists all projects) and list_initiatives (which lists initiatives).

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 clearly implies the context of use: when you have an initiative_id and want its associated projects. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity provides enough guidance. Sibling tools like manage_initiative_projects suggest related operations, but no further direction is given.

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