search_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the tool's name. It does not mention that the search is read-only, whether it returns matches or a single result, pagination, or matching behavior beyond what the schema's 'partial match' note provides (which is in the schema, not the description).

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 a single four-word sentence, leaving no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the minimal information it conveys, though its brevity contributes to lack of context.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not indicate whether the result is a list of matching projects, their structure, or how the search behaves. It also lacks any usage context relative to sibling tools, making it difficult for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('partial match'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond repeating the parameter name, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (search) and resource (projects) with a scope (by name), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_projects which likely fetches projects without searching. Though terse, it unambiguously conveys the tool's core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool rather than get_projects or other siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or contexts where this search is preferred.

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