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

Annotations already declare read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context: returned fields (id, nombre, color, posición, projectCount), cardinality ('Un proyecto lleva una como mucho'), assignment behavior, and workspace fallback from credentials.

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?

Information is front-loaded, starting with the core list action. It is dense and mostly earns its length, though the single long parenthetical paragraph could be easier to scan if broken into structured clauses.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, sibling disambiguation, related write tools, returned fields, assignment rules, and parameter fallback behavior. No critical gap remains.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It fully explains 'workspaceId' as optional, identifies it as the workspace to operate in, points to 'list_workspaces' for enumeration, and states the fallback to the credential workspace.

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 ('Lista las etiquetas de PROYECTO del workspace') and explicitly distinguishes it from issue labels via the sibling 'list_labels'. It also explains the practical purpose: sidebar project grouping.

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 says it is not for issue labels and points to 'list_labels' as the alternative. It also names related tools for creation ('save_project_label') and assignment ('save_project' with 'projectLabelId'), and explains the optional workspace fallback.

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