get_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves all projects, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential limitations (e.g., pagination, ordering). The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence is useful and there is no redundant information. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and usage context. However, it omits explanation of the debug parameter, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 has one optional boolean parameter 'debug' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain this parameter, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The description should at least clarify when to use the debug flag.

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 'Get all projects' and defines projects as categories with type 'project'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_project_overview, which is for detailed analysis. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use when you need project list for organization or project selection.' It also directs users to an alternative (get_project_overview) for detailed analysis, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. its sibling.

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