Get projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a notable behavior: 'Automatically pages through the entire result set and returns it combined.' This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand performance and aggregation semantics. It does not describe error behavior or exact return shape, but for a simple fetch tool this is a reasonable and valuable level of transparency.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. It opens with the action and resource, then states the pagination behavior, then provides the primary use case. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 that this is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is fetched, the automatic pagination behavior, and the expected use case. It does not spell out the exact return fields, but it implies project IDs and names through the mapping use case, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage, including a clear description of pageSize: 'Page size used internally per request to Keka (max 200, default 100).' The tool description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch all PSA projects from Keka.' It further clarifies the scope ('all PSA projects') and gives an explicit use case: mapping project IDs from timesheet data to project names. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_timesheet_entries or get_clients by resource and intent.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: 'Use this to map project IDs found in timesheet data to project names.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The instruction is clear context without exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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