list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the searchable fields and allowed statuses, which adds some transparency. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, default behavior when no filters are provided, or whether archived/hidden projects are included. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 concise, with one sentence for the purpose and a clean, bullet-like listing of arguments. Every sentence earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick scanning by an agent.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the action and all parameters. However, the lack of annotations and absence of any mention of default behaviors (e.g., returns all projects if no filters) slightly reduces completeness. Still, it is adequate for a list operation.

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 no descriptions coverage (0%), and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'search' is clearly defined as searching across name, description, status, or notes; 'status' lists all allowed values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 'List projects' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions optional search and status filter, giving clear scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_materials or list_brands, which refer to different resources.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool (e.g., get_project) would be more appropriate. The usage is only implied by the name and description.

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