list_projects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return format '{projects:[...], returned, limit, truncated}' and explains 'truncated' meaning server has more projects. Also notes default and max limit. Does not explicitly state idempotency but '[READ]' implies safety.

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?

Extremely concise with a structured header line then bullet-style args. Every sentence adds value. No fluff. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

No annotations or output schema, but description covers return format, truncation behavior, parameter details, and scope. Provides all necessary information 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does so fully: 'search' as optional name filter, 'limit' with default 50 and max 99, 'target' as server target with default omit. All three parameters are clearly described.

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?

Starts with '[READ] Projects/repositories the token can see', clearly identifying a read operation on projects. Mention of 'with storage numbers' adds specificity. Distinguishes from siblings like 'project_detail' (single project) and 'list_pipelines' (different resource).

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?

States it lists projects visible to the token, implying scope but does not explicitly provide when to use vs. alternatives. No mention of when not to use or comparison with siblings like 'project_detail'. Lacks exclusion criteria.

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