search_side_projects_by_technology

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool finds projects and lists output fields but does not disclose behavioral traits such as case-insensitivity or partial matching (already in schema), authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. Adequate but minimal.

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: first sentence states the purpose, second lists output fields. No wasted words, front-loaded, easy to parse.

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 with one parameter and output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the core functionality and expected results. Minor gap: no mention of result ordering or empty result handling.

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 100% of the parameter with a clear description, but the tool description adds context by framing the search as finding projects demonstrating competency. This provides additional meaning beyond the schema's 'technology/skill name fragment'.

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 finds side projects that demonstrate competency with a given technology, using the verb 'Find' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_side_projects' by focusing on technology-based search.

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 implies usage when searching for projects by technology but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. No guidance on when to prefer this over other search or list tools.

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