list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a default limit and return format, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, permissions, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses only three sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers key details without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose, parameter, and return format, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors) and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for a list operation in a complex API with many siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'limit' with its default value, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain constraints (e.g., min/max values) or usage context, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'projects in the workspace', making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_repositories' or 'list_pull_requests', which follow the same pattern, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling list tools (e.g., list_repositories, list_pull_requests), but no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific list operation.

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