list_projects

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing the tool as a safe read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond the name itself, such as pagination behavior or return structure. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, conveying the essential purpose without unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with well-documented optional parameters and annotations indicating a safe read-only operation. However, it lacks any mention of when to use list_projects versus search_projects, and there is no output schema to clarify return structure. Given the sibling context, this is a notable 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?

All three parameters (limit, offset, order_by) have descriptions in the input schema, covering 100% of parameters. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'projects', clearly indicating a read operation to retrieve a list. It is distinct from get_project (single project) and search_projects (search-based), but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it gets a 4.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_projects. It does not mention that list_projects may be used for unfiltered lists or that search_projects is better for filtered queries. No usage context is provided.

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