find-projects

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: it discloses that pagination is ignored when searching or when archivedStatus is 'all', which is a non-obvious behavior. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise at three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, default behavior, and pagination nuance. No repetition 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?

Given the presence of a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all essential behavior for a list/search tool. It explains default filtering, pagination exceptions, and the effect of archivedStatus. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the interaction between archivedStatus and pagination, and clarifies that searchText triggers a different result set behavior. This adds value beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'List all projects or search for projects by name.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling find tools like find-tasks or find-sections. It also specifies the key dimension of archived status, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool based on parameters: it explains the default behavior (active only), how to include archived projects, and when pagination is ignored. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., 'use find-tasks for tasks'), though the tool name and resource focus make this less necessary. It offers strong situational context without alternatives.

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