FogBugz

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a listing operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that only 'active (non-deleted)' projects are included, which is not inferable from annotations alone. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, and the second provides a practical usage example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only), annotations cover safety, and the description provides clear purpose, usage, and behavioral details (active projects only). However, without an output schema, the description doesn't specify the exact return format (e.g., array structure, pagination), leaving a minor gap for an agent invoking it.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description correctly states no parameters are needed ('Lists all...'), which aligns with the empty schema. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't add or detract from parameter understanding.

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 action ('Lists'), resource ('all active (non-deleted) projects in FogBugz'), and output format ('with their IDs and names'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'view_project' (detailed view) and 'create_project' (write operation) by specifying it's a comprehensive listing of active projects only.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool: 'to find the correct project ID before creating a case.' This gives a clear use case and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'view_project' (for detailed info on a specific project) or 'search_cases' (for filtering cases).

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