merit_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method and endpoint, confirms no filters, and tells the agent exactly which fields are returned ('Code, Name, EndDate'). This gives a clear read-only listing behavior without requiring the schema.

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, dense sentence with no filler. The action and resource appear first, followed by the endpoint, the filtering constraint, and the return fields. Every element 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, how it is invoked, what constraints apply, and what the response contains. No critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema is an empty object with no parameters, and the description reinforces that by saying 'No filters'. This prevents an agent from inventing or expecting unsupported parameters, adding meaningful semantic clarity beyond the empty schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Merit Aktiva projects'), and the exact endpoint ('POST /api/v1/getprojects'). 'No filters' further defines scope, and no sibling tool targets projects, so it is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when a project listing is needed and explicitly states that no filters are supported. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource is unique among the large sibling set, so little ambiguity exists.

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