list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds pagination behavior, trimmed field list, sort order with '-' prefix for descending, and return envelope structure. No contradictions.

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?

Very concise: one-line summary, list of trimmed fields, parameter descriptions, return format. Every sentence adds clear value without redundancy. Well-structured with bullet-like formatting.

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 tool complexity (pagination, trimmed fields, 3 optional params), output schema exists, and description covers all: parameter defaults, pagination envelope, and referral to sibling for full details. Complete and self-contained.

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%, but description fully explains each parameter: cursor (omit for first page), per_page (range 1-1000, default 1000), order_by (sort field with prefix for direction). Adds critical meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'List projects in a workspace (lite, paginated)' with specific verb and scope. Distinguishes from sibling 'retrieve_project' by noting trimmed fields and directing to that tool for full detail.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (listing projects with trimmed fields) and when to use alternative ('For full detail use retrieve_project'). Also explains pagination usage with cursor and per_page.

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