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

The description adds 'AUTH REQUIRED' (not covered by annotations) and explains automatic organization scoping behavior. It also states 'READ-ONLY' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation but adds no contradiction. The added context about auth and scoping goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 'AUTH REQUIRED; READ-ONLY' followed by a clear statement of function and scoping behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has a single optional parameter, and the description covers auth, read-only nature, and organization scoping. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is fully adequate for this low-complexity tool.

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 100%, so the parameter is well-documented. The tool description reinforces the conditional nature of organizationId ('Accepts an organization id when multiple organizations are available'), adding meaning about when to pass the parameter versus letting it be inferred.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('projects accessible to the authenticated Spala user'), and clarifies the organizational scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_create, project_select, and project_connect by focusing on listing.

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 clearly explains when to supply an organizationId ('when multiple organizations are available') and that a sole organization is automatically scoped. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the scoping guidance provides useful context for when this tool is appropriate.

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