get_agents_in_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful information about flexible lookup and the identifier priority (project_id > workspace_path > project_name). However, it does not state what happens if no identifiers are supplied, how 'active' is defined, or the exact return format, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that relies entirely on optional parameters.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, priority rule, and a bulleted 'WHEN TO USE' section. It is moderately sized but every section contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple read-only nature and three optional parameters, the description covers the main usage intent, resolution priority, and practical scenarios. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., no parameters, no matching project) and return value format, but since no output schema exists, these omissions are noticeable yet not critical for a tool of this simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that parameters can be combined freely and establishing the priority order for resolution, which goes beyond the individual field descriptions.

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 function: 'Retrieve all agents currently active in a specific project.' It specifies a concrete verb ('retrieve'), a resource ('agents'), and a scope ('in a specific project'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_active_agents or get_agents_list that may operate globally or in a different context.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides clear scenarios: checking who is working on a project, coordinating multi-agent work, etc. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus broader agent-listing tools.

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