list_projects

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, open-ended operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting it returns the user's role on each project and is scoped to projects the user 'can work in.' This helps the agent understand the response content and access scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function and result ('projects (tabs) ... role you hold'), and the second sentence gives a practical starting point. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 the simple one-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, the scope ('you can work in'), and when to use it ('Start here'). No significant gaps remain.

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 fully documents the only parameter, board_id, with a clear description: 'Only projects inside this board. Omit for all.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to explain parameters further, and it does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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's function: 'List the projects (tabs) you can work in, with the role you hold on each.' This identifies a specific resource (projects/tabs) and distinguishes it from single-project operations like get_project and board-level operations like list_boards.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Start here when you are asked to do something on a named project.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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