Get projects

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses pagination to completion and the return format. It does not explicitly state it's safe/idempotent, but the read nature is clear. Minor omission prevents a 5.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds value: returns all projects, use case, reminder about apply_changes. No waste.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a simple return, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage scenario, and relationship to sibling tools. Agent has all necessary info.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description adds no parameter info but doesn't need to. It adds context about what the tool does.

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 precisely the action: 'Returns every Todoist project as { id, name }'. It specifies the verb (returns) and resource (projects), and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that apply_changes handles automatic creation.

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: 'to check whether a Someday/Maybe retirement project already exists'. Also clarifies when NOT to create a project manually because apply_changes' move_to_project action finds-or-creates. Provides clear context and alternatives.

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