list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implies so but doesn't state it), authentication requirements, pagination behavior, result limits, or what the return format looks like beyond 'List of matching projects'. For a listing tool that likely queries a database, there's no disclosure about data freshness, access controls, or error behavior.

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 reasonably concise with a one-line summary followed by compact parameter documentation. Each parameter has a focused one-line entry. However, the return statement is thin, and the docstring-style formatting could be tightened. Slight redundancy between the description line and the parameter list could be trimmed.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description needs to be comprehensive. It covers the core purpose and parameters adequately but is thin on return value details, call semantics, and edge cases. Given the sibling tools (query_peoplesoft_db, describe_table) suggest this is a database-backed tool, more behavioral context would be expected for full completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description is the only source of parameter documentation. The description does explain each parameter inline (business_unit code examples, eff_status meaning of 'A'/'I', project_type as a code). However, project_type lacks concrete examples and there's no guidance on valid values or format expectations beyond the brief inline 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 lists projects with optional filtering by business unit, effective status, or project type. It uses a specific verb+resource pattern and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_contracts and list_tables. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_project_contracts which might overlap in purpose.

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 implies usage context ('List projects, optionally filtered') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_contracts or query_peoplesoft_db. It explains what filters are available but doesn't provide guidance on when this tool is preferable to siblings.

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