openai_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 discloses pagination behavior (after cursor, limit) and the include_archived default, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any authentication or rate-limit considerations. The verb 'List' implies non-mutating behavior, but the description does not make it explicit.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clean Args section with one-line explanations for each parameter. No unnecessary information is included.

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 simple list tool with three optional parameters and no required fields, the description covers the essential behavior. The output schema (present) handles return value documentation. The description explains pagination and archive filtering. It lacks some contextual details like auth requirements or error scenarios, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation.

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 has no parameter descriptions (schema coverage 0%), but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: include_archived (behavior and default), after (pagination cursor from last_id), and limit (maximum per page). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 'List projects in the organization.' This specifies the verb (list), the resource (projects), and the scope (organization), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like openai_get_project (single project) and other list tools for different resources.

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 implies when to use the tool (when listing projects) but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention, for example, that openai_get_project should be used for a single project, or that archived projects are excluded by default unless include_archived is set. The usage context is straightforward for a list operation but could be more explicit.

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