Runn: list projects

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context (case-insensitive substring filter, archived toggle) but omits important traits like pagination defaults, fetchAll behavior, or that includeArchived defaults to true. It does not disclose potential side effects (none expected) but leaves room for more clarity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and then summarizes the most useful optional filters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not mention return format or pagination behavior, especially since there is no output schema. It is adequate for a simple list operation but incomplete for an agent that needs to understand result structure and paging upfront.

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 high (86%) and already describes most parameters. The description only paraphrases the name filter and includeArchived, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify undocumented fields like externalId.

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, distinguishing it from singular get_project and mutation tools. It also mentions key filtering options, making its scope unambiguous among sibling list tools.

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 use for enumerating projects but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar tools like runn_get_project or runn_list_phases. It lacks exclusions or alternative references, relying on the tool name to convey usage context.

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