get_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves projects but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, error conditions, or response format. 'Get' implies read operation but lacks confirmation of safety or other behavioral details.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameter usage. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of purpose versus parameter guidance.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a retrieval tool with 1 parameter (though complex nested structure), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the array-based input format, what happens when multiple projects are requested, error handling, or return format, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining that either 'id' or 'name' can identify targets and that 'id' is preferred, which clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully explain the array structure or that 'items' contains objects with these properties.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'projects from Todoist', making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_projects_list', but the parameter structure suggests this retrieves specific projects rather than listing all projects.

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 provides minimal guidance about parameter usage ('Either id or name'), but offers no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_projects_list' or other retrieval tools. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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