mis_proyectos

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the response (id, smallCode, code, name), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and the cross-tool hint last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what comes back and how to use it downstream. Minor omissions like result ordering or behavior when the user has no projects are low-impact.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the input contract. The description usefully clarifies that smallCode is an output field rather than an input, preventing a misplaced-argument error at the next call. Baseline for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lista los proyectos del usuario") and enumerates the returned fields (id, smallCode, code, name). The mention of smallCode and its consumer tool separates it cleanly from the ticket-oriented siblings (buscar_mis_tickets, obtener_ticket, listar_adjuntos).

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?

Gives a concrete next step: the smallCode returned here is the value passed to buscar_mis_tickets, establishing this as an upstream discovery call. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what happens if the user has no projects, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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