nexus_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: the one-page limit with total count, and how the archived flag changes results. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't address potential rate limits or permission details.

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 compact and effectively front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary purpose and key behavior (one page and total count); the second sentence covers all optional filters. No fluff or redundant information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: the resource listed, visibility scope, pagination, total count, and filter options. It does not need to detail return values since an output schema exists, making it complete for agent invocation.

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 description adds significant meaning to each parameter beyond the schema: it explains that 'limit' controls the page size and that the response includes a total count, 'name_like' is a substring filter, and 'archived' toggles the listing to archived projects. This is valuable since the schema itself lacks property 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List Nexus projects visible to the user'. It uses a specific verb (List), identifies the resource (Nexus projects), and adds scope ('visible to the user'). The mention of pagination and total count further distinguishes it from sibling list tools like nexus_list_jobs and nexus_list_devices.

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 when to use the tool (to list projects) and provides context on pagination and filtering options ('Optional name_like substring filter; set archived to list archived projects instead'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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