projects_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It omits important details: whether authentication is needed, if there are pagination or performance implications, and the optional 'limit' parameter is not mentioned. The phrase 'all projects' may be misleading given the parameter allows limiting.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the description mentions key return fields, it lacks explanation of the limit parameter and any behavioral context (e.g., default limit or ordering). For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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%. The description does not explain the 'limit' parameter, leaving its meaning to inference from the name. For a low-coverage scenario, the description should compensate but fails to add any semantic value beyond what the parameter name provides.

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 the action ('List'), the target resource ('all projects'), and the specific fields returned ('id, name, status'). This distinguishes it from other list tools in siblings, which target different resources like acl_list or nodes_list.

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. For instance, it does not mention that for detailed project information one should use project_get, or that this is lightweight. The description only states what it does, without contextual usage advice.

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