List Project Names For A Company User

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it specifies paginated JSON array response, pagination parameters (page, per_page), and endpoint info. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.) and provides useful context for an agent.

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 (few sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then usage, then technical details. Every sentence provides information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, required/optional parameters, pagination, and endpoint. While return fields are not detailed, the mention of 'Directory records' and pagination metadata provides reasonable completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining required parameters (company_id, user_id) and pagination control (page, per_page, response metadata). It also touches on the scope parameter, adding value 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 states that the tool returns a list of project names for a specified user, with specific use cases like enumerating Directory records, finding IDs, and filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on project names for a company user.

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 context such as paginated overview, finding IDs, and filtering by query parameters. It mentions required parameters and pagination control, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, which is a minor gap.

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