get_project_updates

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It reveals the response structure (title, plain text body, HTML body) and notes that auto-published posts have empty content. This adds good context beyond the input schema, but it omits behavioral traits like read-only nature or pagination behavior.

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, with three sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail the fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Ideal length and structure.

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 (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It explains the return fields and the special case of auto-published posts. However, it does not mention ordering, result limits, or potential errors, though these may be covered by the output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The main description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It focuses on the return format, so no extra value is provided for parameter understanding.

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 'Return recent project updates with body content', specifying the resource and action. It explains the fields (update_text, update_content, content_html), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_projects_snapshot, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Parameter descriptions hint at usage (e.g., 'Use 1-2 for daily standup' for days), but there is no direct advice on tool selection or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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