Lister les projets instrumentes

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

The disclosure is adequate for a read-only list operation, listing returned fields. No annotations exist, so the description should explicitly state side effects (none) or other behaviors, but it only describes output. It does not confirm idempotency or lack of side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and output fields.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail on returned fields. It could mention the output structure (list of projects) but is otherwise complete.

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 100% for the single parameter (response_format), with clear enum choices. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Liste' (lists) and resource 'projets' (projects), clearly stating the data fields returned (volume, traces, errors, date, fill rate). It distinguishes from sibling tools like obs_trace_get or obs_event_log by focusing on aggregated project-level metrics.

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 implies usage for listing project summaries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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