List projects

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description does add real value beyond the annotation by disclosing result scoping (only projects visible to this agent) and the payload contents (lane and task counts, which matters since there is no output schema), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty-list behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint leads ahead of the return contents. It is efficient, though it is a fragment that leaves the list/aggregate nature of the operation implicit.

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 zero-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description carries the essential information: what is listed, whose visibility governs it, and what extra aggregates come back. Only ordering and pagination details are missing, which is minor here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly describes only the scope and return contents rather than inventing filtering options that do not exist.

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 sentence names a specific resource (projects) and a concrete scope (projects this agent can see), plus what comes back (lane and task counts). It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools, which all operate on boards, tasks, lanes, or people rather than the project list, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for enumerating projects before drilling into get_board or get_task. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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