taskwarrior_projects

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by mentioning the return format options and that it includes task counts, which are behavioral details beyond annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on potential limitations like pagination or error conditions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, args, returns, examples) and front-loaded with the core function. Each sentence adds value, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be slightly more concise by integrating information, and the example is somewhat redundant with the args explanation.

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 (single parameter with enum), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' reference), the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and output format adequately without needing to duplicate structured data.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by explaining the 'response_format' parameter in the Args and Examples sections, specifying the two enum values and their purposes. This adds meaningful semantics, though it doesn't fully detail the 'params' wrapper structure beyond referencing ListProjectsInput.

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 specific action ('List all projects') and resource ('in Taskwarrior'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like taskwarrior_list (general listing) or taskwarrior_tags (different resource). The first sentence directly communicates the tool's function without being tautological.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to see all projects and the number of tasks in each'), which implicitly differentiates it from other listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, preventing a perfect score.

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