Get project list

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

The description reveals the HTTP method (GET) implying read-only, but no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lacks details about pagination, filtering, permissions, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the method.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences. It front-loads the endpoint and purpose, with no wasted words. However, it is borderline too terse and could include a bit more context without losing conciseness.

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 that this is a simple list endpoint with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what it does and the HTTP method, but does not explain return format, behavior when filtering is needed, or how it relates to other list tools (e.g., 'weeek_get_all_contacts'). A bit more context would be beneficial.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema already documents that no parameters are needed. The description adds no parameter information. Following guidelines, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description does not even state that no parameters are required.

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 operation ('Get project list') and the resource ('/tm/projects'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'weeek_get_project' which retrieves a single project. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'list all projects in the workspace').

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that to get a single project, one should use 'weeek_get_project'. No exclusions or context for selection.

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