get_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: the transparent chunking into 10-id requests, parallel fan-out for 11–50 ids, and the merged result view presented as a single tool call. This is exactly the kind of hidden complexity that needs disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The cap and the chunking behavior are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by describing non-obvious behavior.

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?

Complete for a read-only batch tool. The description covers the cap, the internal chunking, and the merged behavior; the schema handles parameters; annotations handle safety. This is effective as written.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the ids chunking behavior but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states — the ids parameter description in the schema already mentions the 10-id cap and transparent splitting. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no new parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (batch-fetch) and resource (projects by ID) with an explicit cap of 50, and distinguishes it from the singular get_project by describing the batch behavior. An agent immediately knows it is the bulk variant of get_project.

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 clarifies the batch context (fetching multiple projects by ID) and the transparent chunking behavior, which implies when to use it over get_project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use get_project for a single ID', but the batch-fetch framing is clear enough. Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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