dooray_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only operations through 'find' and 'get', but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, permissions, pagination, or output format. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. Every word is purposeful, and there is no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers parameters well, but there is no output schema and no explicit mention of return values (list vs single object). The description also does not clarify the difference between 'find_projects' and 'find_project' beyond the schema's operation enum. It is adequate but has clear gaps in behavior and return expectations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., projectId for find_project, type/scope/state enums). It does not compensate for any gaps, but none exist, so the score remains at baseline.

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's dual purpose: finding projects and retrieving a single project by ID. It uses specific verbs ('find', 'get') and names the resource (Dooray projects), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on members, messengers, calendars, and posts. However, it is slightly vague about the search/list aspects, so it doesn't quite earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose 'find_projects' vs 'find_project'. The schema provides some indication via the operation enum and projectId description, but the description itself offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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