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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the exact response shape, the 100-character truncation of descriptions, and the exclusion of archived projects. These are non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise only discover by calling it.

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 sentences, each earning its place: scope first, then return shape and the truncation caveat, then the archived exclusion. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the returned object structure and the truncation limit. Combined with the annotation-covered safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. It correctly avoids inventing filtering or pagination options that the empty schema does not support.

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 and resource ('List every project stored on this self-host instance') and scopes it to the instance. It also implicitly separates itself from the singular sibling by naming get_project for full records, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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 routes the agent to the alternative: 'call get_project for the full record' when the truncated description is insufficient. It also states an exclusion rule (archived projects are excluded), which tells the agent when this list is not the right source.

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