View Projects

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by noting each returned entry includes an ID for subsequent update/delete operations. No additional behavioral details like pagination are needed for a parameterless list.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides actionable coaching. Some might consider it verbose, but each sentence serves a clear function (purpose, importance, flags, next steps).

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to interpret results, and how to act on them via sibling tools. It is complete for a read-only list tool.

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 zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meanings. Schema coverage is 100% by default. The description appropriately focuses on output usage.

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 tool retrieves 'the user's projects and portfolio items' with IDs for later use. The verb 'Get' and resource 'projects/portfolio items' are specific and distinct from siblings like get_education or get_links.

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 extensive context on when to use this tool (evaluating a candidate's projects) and flags issues to look for (zero projects, missing URLs, missing tech stacks). It also directs to use update_project or create_project for fixes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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