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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds pagination-stability guidance ('Keep ordering unchanged across cursor pages'), but that constraint is already repeated in the schema's cursor and order descriptions, so the added value is marginal.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope before the workflow hint and pagination note. Efficient, though the final pagination sentence largely duplicates schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope and downstream ID use adequately; only the meaning of 'accessible' (permission scoping) is left implicit.

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%, with defaults, ranges, and an enum all documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 (List) and resource (projects) scoped to 'accessible' projects in the connected workspace, which separates it from list_docs/list_tasks/list_files by resource. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or explain how it differs from e.g. list_project_members.

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 returned IDs for later actions' gives implied downstream context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Usage is inferable from the resource name rather than stated.

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