List my projects

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description goes beyond them with real behavioral detail: role-based visibility scoping for operators/admins, the exact fields returned (title, status, dates), and the full set of possible status values. It stops short of saying whether results are ordered or capped.

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 sentences with no filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded. The inline status enumeration is long but earns its place by telling the agent what status values it will see in results.

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-optional-param, read-only list with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what set is returned, what fields, what status values. Only ordering and result-size behavior are left unstated.

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 single optional parameter includeArchived is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with its default, so the description need not repeat it. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (Product Engine projects) and the scope (those the caller can see), and enumerates the returned fields. It does not name the single-record sibling get_project as the alternative, but the list semantics are unmistakable.

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?

It implies when this applies ('projects the person can see', plus the operator/admin note), but never states when to use this versus get_project or get_project_context, and gives no exclusions.

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