User projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the role-dependent result semantics and the pn_project follow-up chain, but says nothing extra about pagination, result volume, or what an empty/invalid username yields beyond the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage, then the next-step pointer. No filler and no redundancy with the schema.

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?

With full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description covers what matters: result meaning by role and where to go next. Minor gap: no mention of how paginated or bounded the listing is, and no signal about what an unknown username returns.

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% and the enum for status is documented in the schema ('finished = completed projects (default); open = still taking bids'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only indirectly reinforces status meaning through the 'finished work' phrasing; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List the projects a Ponisha user is attached to') and adds the key nuance that the result set differs by role: an employer's own projects vs a freelancer's finished work. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like pn_search_projects or pn_portfolios, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('check an employer's history (what they ask for, how many finish) or what a freelancer has delivered') and prescribes the follow-up step: 'Call pn_project with an id for the full brief and the accepted price.' No explicit when-not or exclusion against sibling search tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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