list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, side effects, or whether results are paginated. The output schema exists separately, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the operation name.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable parameter guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the first sentence could be more specific (e.g., 'List all projects' vs. 'List projects').

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 has 5 parameters, many siblings, and an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the pagination parameters (top, skip), projection (select), or ordering (orderby). It also fails to mention that it lists all projects or that filtering is optional. The existence of an output schema partially compensates for return values, but the description still misses critical usage details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. Only filter_expr is described with an example; top, skip, select, and orderby have no explanation. This leaves 4 of 5 parameters undocumented, which is insufficient.

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 'List projects', which is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other entities (e.g., list_clients, list_invoices). However, it does not differentiate from similar project listing tools like list_open_projects or list_closed_projects, leaving ambiguity about which tool to use for all projects.

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 an example of using filter_expr with OData syntax, which helps with one parameter, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other project-listing siblings (e.g., list_open_projects, list_projects_for_client). There are no exclusions or context for tool selection.

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