List 2ools projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating it returns compact metadata without generated source, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. It also clarifies the scope to owned and shared projects, enhancing transparency. No contradictions.

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 the verb, and contains no filler. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: scope (owned/shared, authenticated account), recency, and return characteristics (compact metadata without generated source). It could be more detailed about the exact response fields, but it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% of the only parameter (limit) with a full description, default, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it lists recent 2ools projects accessible by the authenticated account, including owned and shared projects. The verb 'List' and resource are specific, and the mention of 'compact metadata without generated source' distinguishes this list operation from get_project, which retrieves a single project.

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 for when to use the tool: listing projects the authenticated account can access. It also implies the scope (recent, owned, shared) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_project or list_project_pins. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for typical listing use cases.

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