get_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation ('List projects'), but it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with empty results. The behavior is straightforward but not fully transparent.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key filters. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format, pagination behavior (offset/limit), and potential errors. It only covers basic filtering, leaving users uncertain about what data they will receive.

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 input schema already describes all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond confirming the filter and search capabilities mentioned in the description. It does not provide additional context like format or allowed values 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 'List projects from Megaplan' using a specific verb and resource, and it mentions filters by status and search. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_deals and get_tasks by targeting a different entity type.

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 implies usage for listing projects with optional filter parameters, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools are for different entities, so differentiation is inherent but not articulated.

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