List projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and the verb 'List' adequately signals a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not disclose pagination, scope (all accessible projects vs. limited), or result format, but none of these are likely to be surprising for a simple zero-parameter listing.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The operation is front-loaded and the parenthetical earns its place by clarifying the domain concept.

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?

Enough for an agent to decide to call the tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not say what fields the returned projects include or whether pagination/limiting applies. A note such as 'returns project IDs and names for all accessible projects' would close the remaining gap.

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 are no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; per baseline, zero parameters earn a 4. The 'Tracker projects' clarifier adds useful domain context, which is more than an empty 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?

Description uses a clear verb and resource: 'List Tracker projects', and the parenthetical ('the spaces issues live in') grounds what a project is. It is immediately evident this is not huly_list_issues, but it does not explicitly differentiate from huly_list_teamspaces, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 parenthetical implies usage: if you need the containers that issues live in, this is the list tool, and huly_list_issues is for the issues themselves. However, no sibling or alternative is named, and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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