List Projects

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns task counts per project and flags #-prefixed tags without corresponding project records, going beyond a simple list. No contradictions.

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, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action, then concisely adds key details. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (task counts, flagged tags) and default/optional filtering behavior. For a list tool with two params, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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% but the description adds value by explaining the default for 'status' (active) and the effect of 'include_all' (return all statuses). This clarifies behavior beyond the schema's enum and boolean definitions.

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 registered projects' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by mentioning default 'active projects only' and additional return data (task counts, flagged tags), setting it apart from sibling tools like get_project or list_playbooks.

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 description explains default behavior (active projects only) and the effect of optional parameters (status filter, include_all). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a listing tool.

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