List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Description adds 'Not cached — fresh per call,' which is behavioral context beyond annotations. It also clarifies the non-error response for disabled features.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, edge case, caching behavior. No redundant words, front-loaded with core purpose. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, edge case, and caching. It could optionally mention the return format (list of project objects), but not required for completeness. Overall adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents the single optional parameter. Description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, justifying baseline score of 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Returns the list of projects available for the selected organisation,' specifying verb ('Returns') and resource ('projects'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like keeping_tasks or keeping_list_entries by focusing on projects. The mention of behavior when disabled adds further clarity.

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 clearly implied: call to get projects. It notes the edge case of a disabled projects feature, guiding the agent on expected output (note vs error). However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings.

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