rh11_projects_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds return field details (ASIN, keyword, active status, current service volumes), which is useful but not substantially behavioral. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or side effects, though none are expected for a read-only list. With annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence (18 words) that front-loads the purpose, includes scoping ('Rhodium11 Amazon'), and lists return fields without redundancy. Excellent structure for an API description.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by stating the returned fields. It also notes optional filters and the presence of a readOnlyHint annotation covers safety. It could explicitly state that omitting filters returns all projects and whether results are paginated, but for a simple list tool, this is nearly complete.

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%: both parameters (active and region) have descriptions and the enum for region is provided. The description merely says 'optional filters', which adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific action verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'Rhodium11 Amazon projects'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rh11_projects_get and rh11_projects_create by indicating a collection-level listing operation, and specifies the returned fields (ASIN, keyword, active status, volumes).

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 implies usage through 'List' and 'optional filters', but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rh11_projects_get for individual projects or rh11_projects_get_stats for aggregated data. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the comparison inferential.

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