list_projects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds modest behavioral context by noting projects are tagged with their owning organization and scoped to 'this account,' but it does not disclose other traits like pagination, response format, or permission requirements. This is acceptable given the annotation, but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences, with the verb and resource front-loaded in the first sentence and the use case in the second. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name or 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, yet the description still leaves the organization_id parameter ambiguous. The core purpose and use case are clear, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of output format details mean the description is not fully complete for an agent to use it confidently in all scenarios.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter, organization_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to explain the meaning or effect of this parameter, such as whether it filters projects by organization or retrieves all projects when null. This is a significant gap since the description was the only place to clarify the parameter's semantics.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('projects') and scope ('on this account'), and further specifies the output includes the owning organization. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_project and list_documents, and states the intended purpose ('find a project uuid').

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 a clear use case: 'Use this to find a project uuid.' This establishes when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or call out alternatives like get_project once the uuid is known. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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