Listar projetos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. Beyond that, the description adds two important behavioral details: the optional 'busca' filter is applied locally (not via server-side query), and pagination parameters are available. This additional context is valuable and not redundant with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main verb and use case. It wastes no words, and the inline endpoint reference is efficient. It could arguably gain a point by being even more compact, but the structure is clean and readable.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, filters, and use case. It does not mention pagination behavior or any result ordering, but given the readOnlyHint and the simplicity of the tool, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The absence of output schema is acceptable for a list endpoint.

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 50%, with 'busca' and 'cliente_id' already described in the schema. The description repeats the 'busca' filter's meaning but adds that it's applied locally, which is useful. However, 'page' and 'per_page' are undocumented in both schema and description, relying on their obvious semantics. Since coverage is above the low threshold, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear action-verb phrase 'Lista projetos' and ties it to the underlying endpoint (GET /api/projetos). It also states the primary use case (resolving project name before creating a card), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like bticket_list_cards or bticket_list_boards.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool before creating a card, giving a clear context. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives directly, the stated pre-card creation use case implicitly guides the agent away from other list tools. This is adequate guidance, not explicit exclusions.

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