filter_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: conditions are ANDed, field name mappings, ID monotonicity for sorting. However, it omits pagination behavior and rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance, then parameter details. It is informative without being redundant, though it could be slightly more terse on the field list. Every sentence justifies its place.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description explains the core filtering mechanism, provides usage guidance, and detailed parameter semantics for the critical condition parameter. It lacks pagination details but is otherwise sufficient.

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 50%, and the description compensates significantly for the conditions parameter by explaining field names, operators, value types, and AND logic. For other parameters, schema descriptions are adequate. The description adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 filters projects by structured conditions, provides concrete examples ('most recent project', 'projects opened this month'), and explicitly distinguishes it from list_projects. This gives specific verb-resource-examples and sibling differentiation.

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 recommends using this tool over list_projects for certain queries and provides a sorting workaround using monotonic IDs. This is clear, actionable guidance with alternatives.

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