get_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' projects, implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs or result format, which are important even for simple tools, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds context by specifying 'for the current user', which clarifies the implicit scope beyond the schema, earning a baseline score above 3 for compensating with meaningful semantics.

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 ('Get') and resource ('projects'), specifying it retrieves all projects for the current user. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from potential sibling tools like 'list_projects' (which doesn't exist in the provided list), though it differentiates from other 'get_' tools that fetch specific resources like cycles or issues.

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 minimal guidance, implying usage when needing all projects for the current user, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used over other project-related tools (like 'create_project') or when filtering might be needed.

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