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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: token-based visibility and the fact that subprojects have their own issues, board, and wiki while sharing only access control.

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 well-structured sentences that front-load the action and then explain the subproject relationship. Every sentence adds relevant information with no 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the main contextual concern: visibility scope and subproject semantics. It does not mention ordering or pagination, which is a minor gap for a list operation.

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 no parameter semantics burden. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to describe inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the projects visible to this token.' It also distinguishes project-scoped tokens from broader visibility, so an agent can tell this apart from creation or project-detail tools such as create_project or list_project_fields.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool applies: retrieving projects accessible by the current token, including the project-scoped-token edge case. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative, which keeps it below 5.

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