tokmeter_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the returned metrics, which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about ordering (presumably by usage), aggregation behavior, or how uncategorized projects are handled.

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 tight sentences with the resource and payload front-loaded, then the use case. Slight redundancy in that the second sentence mostly restates the purpose, but there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description is the only place the returned fields are enumerated, and it does that adequately. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly given the exhaustive parameter schema; only ordering and aggregation semantics are unstated.

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 limit, scope, and providers are fully documented with defaults and enum semantics. The description only gestures at date range via "date range" and adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource — per-project token usage breakdown — and enumerates what the breakdown contains (cost, tokens, active days, models, date range). This distinguishes it reasonably from the sibling tokmeter_models and tokmeter_providers tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 this to see which projects are consuming the most AI resources" gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives among the 20+ tokmeter siblings (e.g., tokmeter_models, tokmeter_leaderboard). The agent must infer the routing decision on its own.

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