list_side_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether results are paginated, ordered, or include full details. For a listing tool with no annotations, more transparency is needed beyond the basic listing and filtering capability.

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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and contains no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and filter option.

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 has one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the functionality. It defines the scope of side projects and the filtering option, though it could mention that output details are covered by the 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?

The schema covers the parameter description (resume_id) with 100% coverage, and the description adds value by specifying that the resume_id comes from list_resume_summaries. This extra context improves semantic understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool lists side projects, defines them as personal/portfolio projects distinct from work experience, and specifies optional filtering by resume. This differentiates 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 explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_side_projects or search_side_projects_by_technology. The context suggests different use cases (list vs search) but lacks explicit differentiation.

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