List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning filtering, sorting, and pagination, and the schema adds cache-bypass semantics via the 'fresh' parameter. The description itself doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the combination of annotations and schema covers behavior well. A 4 is justified because the description plus structured data give a clear behavioral picture without contradiction.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the filter dimensions. Zero waste. Every word 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 read-only list tool with a rich output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the default sort order or that all parameters are optional, but the schema already covers those. A 4 is appropriate because the description plus structured data leave little to inference.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly, including defaults, enums, and date-time semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('List and filter'), a clear resource ('OmniFocus projects'), and enumerates the exact filter dimensions (folder, status, stalled state) plus sorting and pagination. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_projects and get_project_counts without needing to open schemas.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a paginated, filterable list of projects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., 'use search_projects for text search'), but the filter dimensions and pagination signal the intended use case clearly. A 4 is appropriate because context is clear but exclusions are not stated.

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