Meus projetos e como cada um está

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the scope ('todos os projetos que você enxerga') and listing the data aspects included (progress, overdue, no owner, no date). It does not discuss return format or pagination, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage directive. No filler or redundant information; every part 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema. The description provides the overview scope, the data points returned, and when to call it, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Its sibling tools address more specific needs, but the description clearly directs the agent to use this for broad status questions.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource: 'Visão geral de TODOS os projetos que você enxerga' clearly identifies this as a list/overview tool. It distinguishes itself by being the first tool to call for a status overview or to find a project id/name, separating it from sibling project_report and project_risks 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?

It explicitly states two trigger conditions: use when the question is 'como estão as coisas?' or when needing to discover a project name/id. This is clear, actionable guidance, but it does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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