list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further, disclosing the return envelope ({projects, returned, limit, truncated}) and explaining that 'truncated' means the server held more rows than were returned and that this is 'measured, not guessed.' That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it omits auth/rate-limit caveats.

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?

Front-loads a '[READ]' tag, then the return shape, then a compact Args block. Nearly every line earns its place, with only minor redundancy (limit default 50 restated from the schema).

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return envelope and truncation semantics, and it fully covers all three parameters. It is sufficient to call the tool correctly; only the shape of individual project entries is left unspecified.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does document all three params: search as an optional name filter, limit with default 50 and max 99, and target as a config target name omittable for the default. The max-99 bound and filter semantics are value added over the raw schema, but individual project return fields are left implicit.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Projects/repositories the token can see'), states the access scope ('the token can see'), and adds the differentiating payload ('with storage numbers'). An agent can distinguish this listing tool from project_detail without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implicit – it is a list tool, so one infers 'use this to enumerate projects.' The only real guidance is 'omit [target] for the default,' which is a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use rule. No mention of when to prefer project_detail or any other sibling.

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