list_projects

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses pagination behavior and default/max values, which is good but lacks details like ordering, read-only nature, or any side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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-line description with structured argument list. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's simplicity, the description sufficiently covers input parameters and pagination. Missing return value explanation is acceptable due to output schema. Could mention that it's read-only.

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 has properties with titles but no descriptions (0% coverage). Description adds default values for start and limit, plus max for limit, which is valuable guidance. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of 'page start index' further.

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 all projects visible to the current user (paginated),' specifying the verb 'list' and resource 'projects' with scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_repositories and list_pull_requests, which operate on 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool, nor alternatives. However, the simple nature of listing projects makes usage context obvious. Could have mentioned that this returns only visible projects vs. other listing tools.

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