list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'List' and 'GET', and notes the important constraint that it returns only projects the user can access. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, output structure, or authentication requirements, which are relevant for a tool with no output schema.

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 and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the action and resource, include a scoping parenthetical, and end with a clear usage directive. Every word contributes, with no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its purpose and when to invoke it. It could optionally mention return details, but its current coverage is adequate for a zero-parameter list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter information to add. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately does not attempt to explain nonexistent parameters.

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?

Purpose is crystal clear: 'List ALL Azure DevOps projects the user can access in the organization' uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly scopes to accessible projects. It also includes the API endpoint (GET _apis/projects) for additional precision, and distinguishes itself from the sibling list_repositories by focusing on projects rather than repositories.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover projects to browse.' This implies it is the entry point for browsing, making the usage obvious. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique role among siblings, this is sufficient.

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