list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: pagination, and that the keyword search matches project name or description. However it says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, result ordering guarantees, or the fact that this is a non-mutating read — gaps that matter when no readOnlyHint is declared.

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?

Front-loaded with a single summary sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The Args list partially restates schema titles, but given the 0% schema coverage that duplication is earning its place rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the paging/sorting/filtering surface an agent needs to call it correctly. It falls short only on auth/permission context and the enumeration of sortable columns.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: page is 1-based, limit is bounded 1-500, sort_by defaults to DateCreatedUtc, direction takes 'Ascending'/'Descending', and query filters by name or description. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., allowed sort_by columns beyond the default).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search and list maker projects') plus the capabilities involved (pagination, keyword search, metadata). It is clearly separable from save_projects/delete_projects by the list verb, but it never distinguishes itself from get_projects (single-project retrieval), which a sibling-aware agent would want to know.

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 implies when to use it (browsing/searching projects) through the query and pagination parameters, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or pointers to alternatives such as get_projects for a single project. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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