Search Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds workflow context beyond annotations by explaining its role as the primary entry tool and the need to resolve project context. It doesn't mention the 'list recently visited' behavior (present in schema) but the annotations lower the burden.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase earns its place. It is concise and well-structured, with 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 simple search tool with strong annotations and a schema that documents project_key, the description provides adequate context: what it searches, when to use it, and what to do with the result. The absence of pagination details is offset by the schema's page_num defaults and the tool's low complexity.

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 schema covers project_key with a detailed description, and the tool description largely repeats it. page_num is not mentioned in the description at all, and with 50% schema coverage the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics. It adds limited meaning beyond the 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 clearly identifies the tool as 'Search Meegle projects' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates concrete search criteria (keyword, project key, simple name, exact project name). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like view_search and user_search by focusing on projects, and positions itself as the primary entry point.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'call it first when project context is missing, ambiguous, or expressed only as a human name' and provides the follow-up action of passing the resolved project_key into later project-scoped tools. This gives clear guidance and excludes use when context is already resolved.

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