list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and a title, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond restating that it is a listing operation, the description adds nothing about result volume, ordering, pagination, or default workspace resolution — context an agent needs for a list tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance noted in other dimensions.

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?

The tool is simple and has no output schema, so little is required, but the sole input remains ambiguous and there is no behavioral detail on results. An agent could not confidently call it without guessing the workspace argument's semantics.

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?

There is one parameter ('workspace') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only echoes the word 'workspace' without clarifying whether it is required, whether it defaults to a configured workspace, or what identifier format (slug, name, ID) is expected.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all projects') scoped to a Huly workspace, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_documents or list_issues by resource alone. It stops short of explicitly naming what it is not, so it is clear but not differentiated in prose.

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 phrase 'all projects in a Huly workspace' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement about what happens when the workspace is omitted, and no pointer to any alternative for filtering or single-project lookup.

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