op_list_projects

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by stating the result is scoped to what the API user can see and that results are paginated through pageSize and offset.

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 short sentences with the core action and scope first, followed by pagination. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant wording appears.

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 simple, read-only list operation with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, user-visible scope, included data, and pagination. It doesn't describe the response shape, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the simplicity and by 'with their identifiers.'

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including defaults for offset (0) and pageSize (200). The description only restates that pagination is controlled by these parameters, adding no new semantic detail beyond the 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'OpenProject projects' and defines the scope ('visible to the API user') and included data ('identifiers'). This clearly distinguishes it from the work-package and document siblings since the resource is named explicitly.

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?

It clearly states the operation's context: listing projects visible to the current API user with pagination. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or conditions, but no sibling is another project-list operation, so the lack of exclusions is not a material gap.

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