list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that it returns id, name, and slug, which is helpful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, or authorization requirements beyond 'authenticated organization.'

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 concise and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. It is efficient but could be slightly tighter by removing the second sentence's redundancy (e.g., the output format is implied by the mention of fields).

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?

Given that there is an output schema, the description need not fully explain return values, but it does briefly. However, it lacks completeness in areas like pagination, ordering, or any side effects. It is adequate 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameters are described in the description. There is one optional parameter (limit with default 50) that is not mentioned. Since coverage is low and the description does not compensate, the score is below baseline.

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 'List all projects in the authenticated organization,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like list_agents, though the context is clear.

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 provides usage guidance: 'Use this to discover which projects exist before listing or creating agents.' This gives context on when to use the tool, but does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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