List Projects

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output shape ('Each project includes description, role, tech stack, highlights, and links') and the optional filters. However, it does not mention ordering, behavior when no projects match, or whether the list follows any deterministic order, leaving some traits to inference.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action 'Lists Daksh's projects' is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: optional filters and the returned fields.

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 simple read-only listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It enumerates the fields returned in each project and mentions both optional filters. Minor gaps like explicit ordering or empty-result behavior keep it from a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%; both 'tag' and 'limit' already have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description only adds a marginal example tag value ('fintech') and refers to limit as a cap, which does not substantially exceed the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource 'Daksh's projects', and immediately specifies optional filtering by tag and capping by limit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profile, get_experience, get_skills, and get_github_activity, which cover different domains.

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 provides clear context: this is the tool for retrieving Daksh's projects, optionally narrowed by tag and limit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the domain difference from the listed siblings makes selection unambiguous.

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