xero_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions routing through JWT, tenant, and company scope, which hints at authentication needs, but does not state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or safe. Key behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or error handling are absent.

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 concise with three short sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the tool's identity and routing. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it too brief to be fully useful.

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 an output schema being present, the description does not explain the project concept, filtering options, or how arguments are structured. For a simple list tool, it leaves critical gaps, especially around the ambiguous 'arguments' parameter.

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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described as a JSON string, but no details are given about valid keys or structure. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to add meaning to the parameter. The agent cannot construct correct arguments without external knowledge.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'projects' in the first sentence, indicating the tool lists Xero projects. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_list_invoices, leaving the agent to rely on the name alone. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. There are no prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other list tools.

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