list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, how results are returned, what format they're in, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 extremely concise at just two words, but this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While it's front-loaded (there's only one phrase), it fails to provide necessary information. The brevity comes at the cost of being unhelpful rather than efficient.

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 that this is a listing tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. While the output schema might describe return values, the description should still explain what's being listed, any important constraints, and how to use the pagination parameters. The current description provides insufficient context for effective tool selection and use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (page, per_page), the description provides no information about parameters whatsoever. The schema shows pagination parameters, but the description doesn't mention pagination, filtering, sorting, or any other aspects of how the listing works. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List projects' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of projects, from what system, or what scope is included. While the verb 'List' is clear, the resource 'projects' is too generic without additional qualifiers.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools (list_clients, list_estimates, list_expenses, etc.) that presumably list different resource types, but the description offers no differentiation or context about when this specific listing tool is appropriate.

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