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. It discloses credit cost ('Credits: 0') and authentication requirement ('Requires VISIBLYAI_API_KEY'), which are helpful. However, it does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. For a simple list operation, this is moderately adequate.

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: two sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler words. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key constraints (credits, auth). However, it lacks details on pagination, ordering, or limits, which are common for list operations. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but some context is missing.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter information, but it is not needed.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('EEAT projects'), and the information returned ('scores, domains, and analysis status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project which likely retrieves a single project.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_project). There is no mention of prerequisites or context, apart from requiring an API key. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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