toggl_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered without the description. Beyond that the description adds only the workspace scoping; it says nothing about pagination, whether archived projects are included, filtering options, or the shape of results, which is thin for an open-world list endpoint.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavioral detail noted above.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what is returned and whether results are paginated or include archived projects. Neither is present, and with 0% parameter documentation the definition is not sufficient on its own to invoke reliably.

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 and largely does not. It implies workspace_id selects the workspace but says nothing about the api_key parameter or authentication expectations, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus scope ('Get Toggl projects for a workspace'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from Toggl siblings (toggl_time_entries, toggl_summary, toggl_create_time_entry), though the resource noun makes confusion unlikely.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other Toggl tools, no prerequisites, and no note about what the workspace_id must refer to. The only usage signal is the implicit 'list projects' framing.

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