list_projects

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

Without annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context. It only mentions pagination, but omits ordering, filtering capabilities, or whether the output is limited to accessible projects. This is insufficient for a list tool with no 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action, and no redundant words. Every part earns its place for a simple list tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. However, for a paginated list tool, more context on default order, total counts, or cursor lifecycle would improve completeness. Current description is minimal.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It clarifies the cursor parameter usage but does not explain the limit parameter (e.g., maximum allowed, effect on performance). This adds partial value.

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 that the tool lists projects, and provides pagination guidance. Among many list sibling tools, it distinguishes itself by specifically targeting projects, though it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., all projects or user-associated).

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 gives pagination usage ('Pass next_cursor as cursor for the next page'), but does not advise when to use this tool over alternatives like search_issues or get_project. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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