iyke_project_list

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses ordering, hidden archives, and parameter effect. However, lacks details on pagination limits, permissions, or auth requirements, which is moderate for a list tool.

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?

Two sentences: first states primary behavior and returned fields, second clarifies the parameter. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers ordering, fields, parameter behavior, and use case. Missing pagination details, but that is minor for this scope.

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?

Only one parameter 'include_archived' with 0% schema coverage. Description adds explicit default (false), explanation of behavior, and a concrete use case for when to set true. This compensates fully.

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 'List projects' with ordering specification (position ASC, created_at) and enumerates returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling project tools like create, update, archive, etc.

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?

Context is clear: archived hidden by default, parameter to include them. Provides an example use case 'restoring an old project'. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but context is sufficient.

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