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. It implies a safe read via 'List,' but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, total counts, or what happens when filters match nothing. It adds the archived-status filtering nuance but leaves most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, both front-loaded with the highest-value information (what it lists, what it filters, why you'd call it). No filler or 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?

For a read-only list tool with fully covered schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, and downstream usage adequately. The only meaningful omission is pagination expectations, which the schema partially carries.

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 100%, so every one of the 7 parameters already documents itself, including the status and project_type_id value mappings. The description restates the main filter categories but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource (list/search Productive.io projects) and enumerates the filter dimensions (company, project type, archived status). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling productive_get_project, but the list scope and ID-harvesting framing make its role readable.

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?

Gives a concrete use case: find project IDs to feed into productive_list_tasks or productive_list_deals. That is clear positive guidance, but it never states when to prefer productive_get_project or productive_list_deals directly, so no exclusions or alternatives are covered.

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