List Projects

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavioral traits, but it only states the tool lists mock projects, implying a read operation without detailing permissions, side effects, or return format. The mention of an 'owner' filter that isn't in the schema is misleading, further reducing transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. The unnecessary 'owner' mention is an inaccuracy, but structurally it is clean and easy to parse.

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 two optional filters, the description covers the basic purpose and filter capability. However, it lacks details about response format, pagination, or any usage context, and the inaccurate owner filter creates a gap. Overall, it is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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?

The schema already provides clear descriptions for the two parameters (status and tag), so the baseline is 3. However, the description introduces an 'owner' filter that is not a real parameter, which adds confusing and inaccurate semantics beyond the schema.

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 the tool lists projects, with a specific resource ('projects') and action ('lists'). It also mentions optional filters, distinguishing it as a listing operation. However, it inaccurately claims an 'owner' filter that does not exist in the schema, which slightly detracts from clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_documents or query_analytics. The phrase 'mock projects' implies a testing context, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the decision to the agent.

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