List T3 projects

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds behavioral detail beyond them: matching is case-insensitive, and filtering happens before pagination. The filter-before-pagination note is genuinely useful because it tells the agent that limit and cursor operate on the filtered result set rather than the raw project collection. No contradiction with 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 with zero filler. The core search semantics are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the behavioral note about filter-before-pagination stands as a distinct second sentence. Every word 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description covers the main decision-relevant facts: search criteria, case sensitivity, and the filter/pagination ordering. Minor gaps remain: the behavior when 'query' is omitted (returns all projects versus error) is unspecified, and the exact meaning of the 'cursor' parameter is left to its numeric regex pattern. These are small but not fully resolved.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It compensates well for the 'query' parameter by defining what it matches (title, workspace path, or ID substring, case-insensitive), which the bare string type in the schema leaves completely unspecified. However, 'limit' and 'cursor' receive no direct explanation; their semantics must be inferred from the default/maximum/minimum constraints, the regex pattern, and the indirect pagination hint.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('projects'), and goes well beyond the title by specifying the matching semantics: case-insensitive query against title, workspace path, or ID substring. This active search criteria distinguishes the tool from sibling t3_threads_list (threads, not projects) and t3_project_create (mutation, not enumeration), so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool is for locating projects by a partial title, path, or ID. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives or exclusions, and no routing to siblings such as t3_project_create for creating projects or t3_threads_list for thread-related queries.

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