get_projections

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 implies a read operation but says nothing about time horizon, data freshness, whether projections are computed live or cached, or what the caller receives back.

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 verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse for a tool whose output shape is unexplained.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about this tool's behavior and return value. It never explains what a 'projection' covers (timeframe, units, velocity vs. forecast distinction), leaving an agent unable to predict the response or choose it confidently over forecast_completion.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The schema explicitly forbids additional properties, which the description does not need to restate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current projections') and names what the output contains (velocity and forecast). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools update_velocity and forecast_completion, whose domains directly overlap with the 'velocity and forecast' it claims to return.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related siblings forecast_completion or update_velocity. The agent is left to infer when this read-only projection tool is preferable to those alternatives.

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