df_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a permission-scoping constraint ('visible to the configured API key') but does not disclose pagination or cache behavior, which are only partially inferable from parameter names.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds signal: the verb, the resource, and the access scope.

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 read-only list with optional pagination and cache parameters, the core purpose is adequately covered. However, the lack of an output schema and any mention of return shape, pagination behavior, or cache semantics leaves minor gaps.

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%, and the description says nothing about page, page_size, or use_cache. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names, defaults, and constraints in the input schema, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 concrete verb ('List'), a specific resource ('DataForge projects'), and a scope qualifier ('visible to the configured API key'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools targeting other resources such as data marts, versions, or connections.

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 sentence implies usage when a project list is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative tools. It relies on the agent to infer the appropriate context from the resource name.

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