BugSnag: List Projects

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it lists only projects the user has access to, and optionally filters by API key. It also states that the output (project IDs) can be used with other tools, providing useful behavioral context beyond the 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 well-structured with labeled sections (Toolset, Parameters, Use Cases, Hints). It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Toolset: Projects' line is somewhat redundant given the name, but overall it's efficient and easy to scan.

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 operation with one optional parameter, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, optional filtering, and how the output can be reused. Without an output schema, it gives enough context. Pagination or rate limits are not mentioned, but not critical for this tool's completeness.

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 sole parameter `apiKey` is described in the schema with identical wording. The description adds 'if known' implying optionality, but this is already clear from the schema (not required). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra meaning, earning a baseline of 3.

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 all projects the user has access to or finds a project by API key. It specifies the resource (projects) and scope (organization/user access), with two distinct use cases that differentiate it from siblings like bugsnag_get_current_project.

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 provides concrete scenarios for using the tool (overview of projects, locate by API key). The 'Hints' section advises how to leverage output (project IDs) with other tools. No explicit exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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