List qTest projects

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description adds useful context by specifying return fields (id, name, status) and the authentication requirement ('authenticated user can access'). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every word contributes value. It states the purpose, return fields, and usage guidance without redundancy.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the essential aspects: what it lists, what it returns, and how it should be used first. No gaps are evident.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'assignedOnly' with a clear Boolean description, so the schema provides 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all qTest projects the authenticated user can access, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('qTest projects'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qtest_get_project by focusing on listing all accessible 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 provides clear context by stating 'Use this first to discover the projectId required by most other tools,' giving an explicit when-to-use instruction. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is strong enough to indicate this is the initial discovery tool.

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