autotask_search_projects

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions pagination (default 25 per page, use page parameter), which is useful, but fails to disclose other behaviors such as whether the search is case-sensitive, whether it supports wildcards, or any rate limits. For a search tool, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states the tool's core function, the second explains pagination behavior. No extraneous information exists, and the key details are 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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., project objects with fields). It omits this, focusing only on pagination. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities without inspecting sibling tools or assuming standard Autotask project structure. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the 'page' parameter (schema had none for it) and clarifying pagination defaults. However, for the other parameters, the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search for projects in Autotask'. This distinguishes it from numerous sibling search tools (e.g., autotask_search_tickets, autotask_search_companies) by explicitly naming the resource. The verb 'search' is appropriate for a read-only query tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling search tools, but the description does not mention specific scenarios or filters covered uniquely by this tool. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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