List Project Tools

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination control via page/per_page and response metadata. It also specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, which aids understanding. No contradictions with annotations.

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 only four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, suggesting use cases, describing output format, and noting required parameters/API details. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

While the description covers the main purpose and pagination, it contains a significant inconsistency: it first says 'Returns all Tools' but later says 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Project records.' This misstates the return type (should be tool records, not project records). Without an output schema, the description should accurately describe the response structure, and this error reduces completeness. Additionally, it does not explain what fields each tool record contains.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces that project_id is required and page/per_page control pagination, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Returns all Tools available to the provided Project' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it enumerates tools for a project, not other entities. The mention of pagination and filtering further clarifies its purpose, making it stand out among many list endpoints.

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 explicitly advises when to use it: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also identifies the required parameter (project_id). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or describe alternative tools for similar tasks, which prevents a perfect score.

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