jdra_search_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly describes a read operation and partial-name filtering behavior via query. It does not cover output structure or edge cases, but for a simple lookup this is adequate.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the operation and purpose are front-loaded and the filtering parameter is stated succinctly.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, and a clear lookup purpose. The description is complete enough to select and invoke it correctly, though a bit more explicit return-format detail would make it fully self-contained.

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% and the query parameter is already described as '프로젝트 이름 일부 (생략 시 전체)'. The description mostly restates this, adding no new parameter-level semantics beyond the name→id purpose.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('프로젝트를 조회한다') and adds the intended purpose '이름→id 해석용', making the tool's role clear. It is distinct from sibling search tools for users, customers, and product lines.

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 parenthetical '(이름→id 해석용)' gives a clear context for when to use the tool: resolving a project name to an ID. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling covers project search.

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