list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'List your projects.' It fails to mention pagination, filtering, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The agent gets no insight into how the tool behaves beyond its name.

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 very short (5 words) but under-specified. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. While it is concise, it does not effectively convey the tool's purpose or usage, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful summary.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description provides none of the context needed to use the tool effectively, such as pagination, search filtering, ownership options, or API key handling. It is severely incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional param meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the details, though the description could have summarized key parameters for quick understanding.

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 'List your projects' is clear in stating the verb and resource, but it's vague and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_project or list_datasets. It effectively repeats the tool name without adding specificity about what 'list' entails (e.g., pagination, sorting, or output details).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project or search-related tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage. The description is silent on when this tool is appropriate.

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