List QA Touch projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the pagination behavior (50 per page), the pagination metadata returned (current_page, last_page, total), and how to navigate pages. It does not explicitly state side effects, but 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('List projects'), followed by concise pagination details. Every sentence 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?

For a simple, single-parameter list tool, the description covers the domain, pagination behavior, page parameter usage, and response metadata. The main gap is that it does not describe the shape of the project records themselves, and there is no output schema to compensate; however, the core invocation details are sufficiently complete.

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 documents `page` with a default and minimum, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining that `page` is used to fetch subsequent pages and that pagination is 50 per page, going beyond the bare schema definition.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List projects'), scopes it to the QA Touch domain, and is clearly distinct from the sibling tools create_project and get_project. An agent can immediately understand what action this tool performs.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to list projects with pagination, and to pass the `page` parameter to fetch subsequent pages. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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