Arsenkin: projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it never triggers a scan (no side effects) and costs nothing, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it. Return-shape details are covered by the output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the read scope first, then routing guidance, then cost. No filler, though the clause-dense enumeration of report types could have been tightened.

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 26-parameter, multi-report read tool the description is far too thin: it never explains which optional parameters apply to which report value, no pagination guidance, and no explanation of how the many filter params combine. The output schema helps with returns but not with invocation.

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?

With 26 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden, yet it explains only the required 'report' dimension loosely (the listed categories map to the report enum). The other 25 parameters – pagination, filtering, tag/group selection, date ranges – are undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('saved Arsenkin Projects data') and enumerates the report families (projects, regions, competitors, keywords, positions, charts). This differentiates it from the sibling action tools (submit, prepare, estimate, cancel) which initiate work rather than read saved data.

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?

'Use for tracked-project reports; never starts checks' gives both a positive context and an explicit exclusion that separates it from the check-running siblings. It stops short of naming a specific alternative for non-project data, but the boundary is clear.

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