CrabCut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions listing 'recent' projects and their status, implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits like pagination, default sorting, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning optional parameters or output format.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., list structure, fields included), behavioral details like ordering or limits, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the context of 'recent' or how status filtering interacts with listing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 the verb 'List' and resource 'recent clip generation projects with their status', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_project_status' which might retrieve status for a single project, leaving room for potential confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_status' or 'generate_clips'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether projects need to exist first, or exclusions, making it minimally helpful for decision-making.

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