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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about projects being lightweight contexts and the one-task-per-project rule, which is useful domain knowledge. However, it does not add significant behavioral detail beyond that; the includeArchived note mirrors the schema description.

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, front-loaded with the usage context, then a brief domain clarification, then the parameter tip. No fluff, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, usage, and the parameter. It does not describe the return format, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, this is not a critical gap.

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 schema covers the single parameter with 100% description coverage. The tool description's mention of includeArchived repeats the schema's explanation without adding new semantic detail, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to list projects, with explicit use cases ('when the user asks about their projects' or when needing to know which projects exist before filing tasks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_project and update_project by being the listing operation.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool, including a specific scenario (before filing tasks). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is explicit enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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