get_project_enums

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: statuses include a category (planned/in_progress/done), and done state is defined as category=='done'. This goes beyond a simple 'retrieves enums' statement, though it does not cover auth or error behavior.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the key enum semantics, and the third gives usage timing. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, domain semantics, and usage context. An output schema exists to handle return-value structure, so no critical information is missing.

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 only parameter, project_id, is made meaningful by the description's '프로젝트별' (per-project) phrasing. Although schema description coverage is 0%, the single parameter is self-evident from the tool name and description, so the lack of explicit parameter documentation is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb '조회한다' (retrieves) with a specific resource: project-specific custom status/priority/task_type enums. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling task-management tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before task creation, modification, or filtering to check valid enum values and the 'unfinished set'. It provides clear context but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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