get_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get all projects from Things,' implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, whether projects are mutable, or how the data is structured. The behavior is minimally conveyed.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, making it quick to parse. The first sentence provides the core purpose, and the second documents the parameter. However, it could be structured better with a clear separation of description and parameter details.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the tool's main action and parameter, but lacks context about the scope of 'all projects' (e.g., user-specific or global), no mention of ordering or pagination, and no guidance on expected return format beyond what the output schema might provide.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'include_items' parameter as 'Include tasks within projects,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's default and title. However, it does not specify what 'include' means structurally (e.g., nested tasks or a separate tasks array), leaving room for ambiguity.

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 from Things,' specifying the verb 'Get,' the resource 'projects,' and the scope 'all.' This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_project' and 'update_project,' which are mutative, and from other retrieval tools like 'get_today' or 'get_inbox.'

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 such as 'search_todos' or 'get_areas.' It lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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