Проекты

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful domain context: categories are projects and the hierarchy is strictly single-level. However, it discloses no additional behavioral details like response shape or pagination.

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?

Two short sentences carry the essential domain mapping and hierarchy constraint with no filler. The naming clarification is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with two optional, well-documented parameters and robust annotations, the description is nearly complete. The missing output-schema detail is a minor gap because the tool name and domain context make the return intent obvious.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents business and include_archived. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which makes the baseline of 3 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 clearly identifies the resource ('Проекты дела' mapped to API 'categories') and adds a useful hierarchy note. It does not explicitly state the 'list' verb, relying on the tool name, and it does not contrast with categories_save/categories_delete, but the resource and intent are clear enough.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as categories_save or categories_delete, and it gives no exclusions or conditions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and title.

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