list_projects

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as supporting pagination and locator filtering. The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, and the description is consistent with those.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key features. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 that the tool has an output schema, rich annotations, and a fully described input schema, the description provides adequate additional context about pagination and filtering. It could potentially mention that it returns a list of projects, but that is implicit from the name and purpose.

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?

Since the input schema has 100% description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions locator filtering, which aligns with the locator parameter, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 TeamCity projects' with a specific verb and resource. The mention of pagination and locator filtering adds specificity, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like get_project or list_builds.

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 indicates support for pagination and locator filtering, which gives context on when to use the tool (when you need to paginate or filter). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_project for a single project.

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