projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is read-only ('consome'), describes validation outputs, and lists triggers. It lacks explicit statements about side effects, but the detail on actions compensates.

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 in a single paragraph but remains concise, covering purpose, actions, and triggers in about 150 words. It could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation, but it's not excessive.

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 and no annotations, the description provides solid context: what each action returns and validation details. It lacks return format or error handling, but for a simple registry tool, this is sufficient.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning by explaining action-specific behaviors and the role of the name parameter in get. projectRoot is adequately described in both schema and description. The actions' implications go beyond enum values.

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 consumes the project registry (PROJETOS.md) and details three specific actions (list, get, doctor) with precise outcomes. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on project registry management, a niche not covered by other tools.

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 explicit trigger phrases and action-specific behaviors, guiding when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like sync, leaving some ambiguity.

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