list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: automatic SIWX wallet auth, error conditions (403 for non-member/guessed org_id, 400 for non-UUID), and the authorize-before-reveal pattern. It does not mention rate limits but covers key behaviors.

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 but packs a lot of detail into a few sentences, starting with the primary purpose and then elaborating on parameters. It avoids redundancy and each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description mentions returned fields (name, site_url, custom_domains, org, status) and pagination cursor, providing sufficient context for an agent to understand the response. It covers authentication, error scenarios, and parameter interactions, making it fairly complete for a list tool.

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 description adds context beyond the input schema by explaining parameter effects (e.g., 'pass org_id to filter to one org' with error details, 'all:true for cross-wallet inventory', and pagination with limit/cursor). The schema already has 100% coverage, so the description provides extra 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 it lists projects from a domain-aware inventory using GET /projects/v1, mentions default membership-scoped behavior and returned fields (name, site_url, etc.), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_get by focusing on listing multiple projects.

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 explains when to use parameters (org_id for filtering, all for cross-wallet, limit/cursor for pagination) and mentions default behavior, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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