List projects

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses account-scoped visibility, the expected output fields, and a downstream usage constraint. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or discuss rate limits, but for a list operation the core behavioral details are present.

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 no filler: the first defines the operation and result fields, and the second connects the output to a sibling tool. The most important scope detail is front-loaded.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool, the description plus schema fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned, scope visibility, and how to use the result downstream. No output schema is declared, but the stated fields are sufficient for calling the 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 input schema already documents both parameters (limit and query) with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. It also adds no parameter-specific nuance, keeping it at the baseline 3.

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 states a specific action and resource ('List the projects visible to this account') and names the returned fields. It also differentiates itself from the sibling search_work_packages by explaining that its returned id is the projectId for that tool.

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?

It gives clear context for when to call this tool: to see account-visible projects and obtain ids for scoped work-package searches. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, but the workflow pointer is concrete and actionable.

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