List Projects

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the project list is empty. The claim that a project ID is required contradicts the schema, further harming transparency.

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 extremely short but includes misleading and contradictory information. It is not concise in a helpful way; the single sentence contains an error that harms usability.

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 the lack of output schema, annotations, and the contradictory description, the tool definition is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what a project is, how the list is returned, or any pagination details.

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 description falsely asserts a required project ID when the schema defines no parameters. This misinformation degrades the parameter semantics, as it adds incorrect context beyond what the schema provides.

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 is contradictory: 'Requires a project ID' but the input schema has no parameters. The title 'List Projects' implies no input, but the description adds an unnecessary requirement. This confusion undermines purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description lacks any context about its purpose relative to PROJECT_listCompetitors, PROJECT_listKeywords, etc.

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