list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating that it lists projects accessible to the authenticated user and specifies the return fields (names, IDs, status, task counts). However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention pagination, sorting, or any rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps. This is a modest but not exhaustive disclosure profile.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero extraneous information. Every word contributes meaning: scope, return fields, and access context. This is an exemplary concise description.

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 low-complexity list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it lists, for whom, and what it returns. It does not mention pagination or sorting, which are common for list tools, but given the simplicity and the fact that the return fields are named, it is sufficiently complete. A score of 4 reflects that it meets the needs without over-specifying.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (status and parent_id), so the description does not need to compensate. The description itself adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline score of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects') with clear scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tasks and get_project by focusing on project listing with project-specific fields. It is unambiguous and immediately tells the agent what the 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it lists all projects the user can access. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for a single project, use get_project'), but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer typical use cases. A 4 is appropriate because the context is clear, though no alternatives are named.

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