kaiten_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does indicate a read-only listing behavior with company-wide scope. It does not disclose caveats such as pagination, required permissions, or whether archived/inactive projects are included, but for a parameterless list tool the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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?

A single sentence that is immediately front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Every word adds relevant scope information ('all', 'in the company').

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, this description gives sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly and understand the intended result. It would be slightly stronger if it described the shape of the returned project list, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so there is no semantic burden on the description. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly requires no additional parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all Kaiten projects'), with explicit scope ('in the company'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like kaiten_get_project (single project), kaiten_create_project, and kaiten_list_project_cards.

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 phrase 'all Kaiten projects' implies this is the tool to use when a complete project listing is needed, and the resource name separates it from get/create/update/delete variants. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions such as using kaiten_get_project for a single project.

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