list_projects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool lists accessible projects, implying no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose any authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a simple read operation with no params, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the usage is appended concisely. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but the tool is simple: returns a list of projects. The description provides the context of use (finding project_id) which completes the picture. For a no-parameter, read-only list tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the list (finding project_id), which is a useful semantic above what the empty schema provides. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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?

Description clearly states 'Lists all DutyHub projects accessible by the user' and ties it to a specific use case (finding project_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project and other CRUD 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?

Explicitly says 'Use to find the correct project_id before adding a task' which gives clear context. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple tool.

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