Similar projects

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

The annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world operation. The description adds that results are Karlancer-suggested rather than exhaustive and include budget and duration, but gives no information about result count, ordering, pagination, freshness, or empty results.

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 compact and front-loads the operation and notable result fields. The final sentence is short but somewhat misdirected because it explains how to invoke kl_project instead of explicitly completing this tool's invocation workflow.

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 read-only tool, the purpose, workflow position, and key result attributes are enough for basic selection and invocation alongside the schema. It would be more complete if it explicitly connected the prerequisite kl_project call to the identifier supplied here and disclosed any result-limit behavior, particularly since there is no output schema.

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 sole project parameter has 100% schema coverage, including its accepted token, slug, and URL forms, so the schema does the necessary work. The description mentions a token but attaches it to kl_project rather than clarifying this tool's project argument, adding little beyond the schema and potentially causing confusion.

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?

“List the projects Karlancer suggests as similar to one project” gives a specific verb, resource, and relationship, clearly distinguishing it from kl_project and kl_projects. Mentioning budget and duration further clarifies what the similar-project listings contain.

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?

“Use after kl_project” provides an explicit workflow position, while “to see comparable work and what else employers ask for” explains when the tool is useful. It does not discuss when not to use it or name an alternative for broader project discovery, and the closing instruction slightly muddies the workflow.

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