list_side_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (total_count, items) and optional resume filtering, but lacks details on ordering, performance, or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes its scope, the second covers response format and filtering. Efficiently front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and good parameter coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, optional filtering, and pagination. However, it does not mention default ordering or any maximum pagination limits, which could be relevant.

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 description adds context by specifying that resume_id comes from list_resume_summaries. The parameters are well-described in the schema, and the description adds value beyond the schema for the resume_id parameter.

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 defines side projects as personal/portfolio projects distinct from work experience, and specifies that it lists them with optional filtering by resume. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_experiences and search_side_projects.

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 mentions optional filtering by resume but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this list tool versus search_sibling tools like search_side_projects or search_side_projects_by_technology. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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