basecamp_find_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain behavior. It only mentions fuzzy matching but does not disclose whether it returns a single project or a list, what happens if no match is found, or any authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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, focused sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail. It is concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, but the description lacks information about the return format or behavior on no matches. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context to be fully 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 100% with a clear parameter description ('Project name or partial name to search for'). The tool description adds the 'fuzzy matching' concept, but it largely reinforces the schema rather than providing substantial new meaning.

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 tool's function: 'Find a project by name using fuzzy matching'. It specifies the verb (find), resource (project), and method (by name, fuzzy matching), which distinguishes it from siblings like basecamp_get_project (likely by ID) and basecamp_list_projects.

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 the tool should be used when you have a partial or fuzzy project name and need to locate a project. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use basecamp_get_project if you know the ID'.

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