swit-project-list

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

No annotations exist, and the description omits critical behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, or data access limits. For a list tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence, but it is overly brief and lacks necessary detail. Appropriate length is not the same as being complete.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return structure, or any behavioral expectations.

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 input schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning or context for any of them (workspace_id, offset, limit, activity, disclosure, name). The agent has no insight into parameter usage.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'list of projects', establishing its basic function. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'swit-channel-list' and 'swit-workspace-list' through the resource type, but lacks additional scope or filtering context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for projects, but there is no explicit context for selection or exclusion criteria.

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