freeagent_list_projects

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses what the tool returns (project URL, name, status, contact) and that the project URL is used for expense tagging. This adds behavioral context without contradicting annotations, though it omits details like pagination or authentication.

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, immediately states the action and results. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, return values, and a downstream use case. The output schema is absent, but the listed return fields suffice.

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 fully documents the single 'view' parameter with an enum and default, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description itself adds no additional parameter information, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'List FreeAgent projects', a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also lists returned fields (URL, name, status, contact), distinguishing it from other list tools like freeagent_list_tasks or freeagent_list_contacts.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need project details, particularly to tag expenses to client engagements via freeagent_create_expense. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the integration hint is valuable.

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