Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints. The description adds behavioral context: credentials are sourced from environment variables and authentication occurs on first use. This explains the tool's interaction with external state without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured, using a table to organize the three operations. No redundant sentences; all content is informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description briefly indicates return types (e.g., 'list projects', 'inspect metadata, owner, member count', 'show current user info'), which is sufficient for a read-only tool. It covers credential handling and operation-specific arguments effectively.

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 input schema already describes op and project (100% coverage). The description goes further by mapping each operation to its required/optional arguments, clarifying that get needs project while list and whoami don't, which is not evident from 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 explicitly states 'List or inspect Taiga projects and verify credentials' and then enumerates three operations (list, get, whoami) in a structured table, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like sprints or work.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use the whoami operation for credential verification, and the table indicates when each op applies (e.g., get for inspecting a specific project's metadata). While it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the resource-specific scope makes the use case clear.

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