List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about default status filtering, pagination behavior, or result volume, all of which are behavioral traits an agent would benefit from knowing when listing a potentially large collection.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The parenthetical definition earns its place by clarifying the domain term, though the whole description is arguably too terse for a six-parameter list endpoint.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns at a high level and the schema carries parameter detail. It leaves gaps around default filtering (status defaults to 'active'), pagination expectations, and how results are ordered, which matter for correct invocation.

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 83%, so most parameters (page, sort, filter, status, per_page) are already documented in the schema. The description's one contribution is naming client_id, which is the single parameter lacking a schema description, but it does not explain that it scopes results to a client's projects.

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 ('List projects') and even parenthetically defines what a project is ('groupings for tasks'), which disambiguates it from siblings like in_list_tasks. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many other in_list_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage hint is 'Filter by client_id'; there is no statement of when to call this versus in_list_clients or in_list_tasks, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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