dooray_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses token-based access, the difference between modern and legacy URLs, and an important pagination caveat. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior, but the list/get framing and the practical warnings add substantial transparency beyond a bare 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 four sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, URL implications are condensed, and the pagination caveat earns its place. Every sentence contributes new operational guidance.

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 tool with seven parameters, two operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation decisions: which operation to choose, which parameters are required for each, how to extract identifiers from URLs, and how to paginate safely. It does not mention response shape, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical than ensuring correct parameter selection and exhaustive search behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining conditional requirement relationships (find_projects needs type/scope/state, find_project needs projectId) and by giving strategic meaning to page and size: exhaust every relevant filter combination to avoid false negatives. This is useful behavioral parameter guidance not present in the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Dooray projects accessible to the token or get one project by ID.' It clearly separates the two operations supported by the tool, find_projects and find_project, and the resource (Dooray projects) is distinct from sibling calendar, messenger, and post tools.

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 gives explicit operation-selection guidance: find_projects requires type, scope, and state; find_project requires projectId. It also provides URL-based decision rules for choosing between direct lookup and project discovery, plus a strong pagination directive: exhaust page/size filter combinations because one page is not proof of inaccessibility.

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