List Projects

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

The description discloses the paginated nature of the results, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it does not clarify other behavioral aspects such as authentication needs, whether 'all projects' means all accessible projects, or the structure of the response. The pagination mention adds some value beyond the bare title.

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 a single concise sentence, 'List all projects (paginated)', with no redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the fundamental purpose and a key behavioral attribute.

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 tool is a simple list operation with one optional parameter, the description combined with the schema is largely sufficient. The explicit mention of pagination is valuable, though it could mention what fields are returned or access scope. Minor gaps exist, but overall it is reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'page' with its description and default, resulting in 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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' and identifies the resource 'projects', clearly stating its function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on wiki pages, issues, or merge requests, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states the action without providing context for selection among the sibling tools.

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