list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists projects available to the token (implying auth), optionally supports pagination, and returns specific fields. However, it does not discuss rate limits, idempotency, or other behavioral details beyond what is stated.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the operation and providing usage guidance. No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description lists the fields returned. Parameters are well-documented in the schema. The tool is simple (list projects) and the description covers purpose, usage context, auth, and output. It is complete for this complexity level.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'optional pagination' which aligns with limit/offset, and lists return fields. With high schema coverage, baseline 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 the tool's action ('List'), resource ('Unleash projects'), and context ('available to the configured token'), with optional pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling flag tools by focusing on projects.

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 using this tool for 'discovery before scoping flag operations to a specific project,' providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the sibling list consists entirely of flag-related tools, making its role clear.

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