projects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses read vs. write intent via HTTP verbs (GET for list/get/notes/workspace, POST/PUT for create/update/clone/archive/restore) and the existence of a restore counterpart implying archive is reversible. It does not mention permissions, side effects on related data, or error behavior.

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 action table is front-loaded, scannable, and each line adds distinct information (endpoint + required params). The repeated 'requires:' token is mildly redundant but keeps the format uniform and predictable.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema dispatcher, the description covers action routing and required params adequately and even notes the list return envelope (total + has_more). It omits the contents of 'fields', auth requirements, and failure modes, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map required parameters per action (id, fields, note_id, note_content) and notes limit defaults to 25, which is real added meaning. However, it never explains the shape or contents of the free-form 'fields' object used by create/update, leaving the most ambiguous parameter undocumented.

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 tool names the resource (AttackForge projects) and enumerates twelve concrete actions with their HTTP endpoints, so an agent can see exactly what operations exist. It distinguishes itself from siblings like vulnerabilities/assets by resource, though the umbrella verb 'Manage' alone would be vague without the action table.

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 list entry explicitly routes the agent: 'Returns total + has_more. Use projects.get for full detail,' which clarifies list vs. get. No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over the sibling raw_request for other endpoints, but for a project-scoped CRUD surface the context is clear.

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