get_available_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'discovers' projects, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention critical behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination handling (despite a parameter for pagination info), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and uses an emoji for visual clarity. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role, making it appropriately 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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format expectations (beyond 'keys and IDs'), and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in overall 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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description's mention of 'dynamic project selection' loosely relates to filtering but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or interactions, so it doesn't enhance the schema's documentation.

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: 'Discover available projects with their keys and IDs for dynamic project selection.' It uses specific verbs ('discover') and identifies the resource ('projects') along with key output attributes ('keys and IDs'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_milestones' or 'get_all_launches_for_project,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'dynamic project selection' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_all_launches_for_project'), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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