lbm_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. Instead, it adds value by explaining default output format (CSV vs JSON) and pagination behavior, which are beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with a clear structure: WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, NEXT STEP. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, and key points are front-loaded.

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 that this is a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and explicit output format description, the description is complete. It covers pagination, filtering, and next steps, leaving no gaps for an agent to misunderstand how to use it.

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%, but the description adds context about when to use include_all_fields (default compact CSV recommended) and implies pagination usage. This additional guidance enhances understanding beyond raw schema descriptions.

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 'get a list of all brand monitoring projects for the current user,' specifying the verb, resource, and context. It distinguishes from siblings like lbm_get_project by indicating this is the first step before deeper details.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use as the FIRST step' and provides a next step (lbm_get_project). While no alternatives are explicitly excluded, the guidance is clear and contextual. A score of 4 reflects that exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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