List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: Moneybird returns only active projects unless the filter says otherwise. It also notes the relational link to time entries, which helps the agent understand the data model. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with fully documented parameters, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is complete. It conveys the default-filter behavior and the practical relationship to time entries, which are the key non-obvious aspects an agent needs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (page, filter, per_page, administration_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'List projects', a specific verb plus resource, and immediately clarifies the default scope (active projects only). This clearly distinguishes list_projects from the singular get_project sibling and other list_* tools.

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 a concrete use case: time entries reference projects by `project_id`, so an agent working with time entries can use this tool to resolve project references. It implies when to use this tool without explicitly naming alternatives, which is acceptable given the strong naming convention and sibling context.

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