BugSnag: List Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: access is scoped to projects the current user can see, the apiKey acts as a lookup filter, and returned project IDs can be passed to other BugSnag tools. Pagination and response shape are not disclosed, but this is a minor gap for a simple read-only list.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and the rest is organized into short, scannable sections. The 'Parameters' bullet mostly duplicates the schema, and 'Toolset' adds little, but the overall length is reasonable and each remaining section contributes useful context.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete: it states scope, the optional filter, use cases, and how results can be consumed by other tools. It does not describe pagination or the exact response fields, but the hint about project IDs covers the most important downstream need.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the optional apiKey parameter. The description adds minor context by linking the key to 'the user's code,' but it repeats the schema text and does not introduce format, constraints, or examples.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all projects in the organization that the current user has access to.' It also clearly distinguishes the alternate API-key-based lookup behavior, so an agent understands both the default action and the optional filter.

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 'Use Cases' section gives explicit scenarios: getting an overview of all projects and locating a project by API key from user code. The 'Hints' section adds downstream guidance that project IDs can be reused with other tools, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like bugsnag_get_current_project.

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