List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds value by explaining the auth-mode-dependent result scope (key returns one project, PAT returns all memberships), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe pagination, sorting, or response format 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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose; the second explains the critical auth-type difference. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with good annotations, the description is complete. It covers the key behavioral nuance (auth-type-dependent scope). No output schema exists, so the description could benefit from mentioning what fields are returned, but for a simple listing tool this is acceptable.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty schema is fully covered). With 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than params since there are none to document.

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 verb (list) and resource (projects visible to the configured credential). It distinguishes behavior based on auth type (project keys vs personal access tokens return different scope). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_project, but the scope statement adds clarity.

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 clear context about when to use it: to list projects visible to the configured credential. It explains the two authentication modes and their differing behavior (key returns one project, PAT returns all memberships), which helps the agent anticipate results. No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the 'visible to credential' scoping is useful context given the openWorldHint=false annotation.

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