boardsesh_get_projects

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the per-(board, climb, angle) project definition and the sort order by most recently tried, then most tries. This gives the agent useful expectations about what the call returns and how it behaves.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core definition and use case, followed by a concise sorting and edge-case note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It defines the domain concept, gives usage guidance, clarifies a subtle behavioral rule, and states ordering—all an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the board and limit parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to; the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), identifies the resource ('the user's projects'), and defines 'projects' precisely as climbs attempted but never sent at that angle. This definition distinguishes it from sibling tools like boardsesh_get_ascents, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user asks what they are working on, unfinished climbs, or what to try again.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or give a when-not-to-use directive, which leaves a small gap in routing.

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