list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists projects and shows status and milestone organization, but doesn't describe important behaviors like pagination (only mentions a default limit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The parameter explanations are efficient and directly relevant. While the formatting with indentation could be cleaner, the content itself is well-structured and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity with 3 parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a tool that likely returns structured project data, the description doesn't mention what fields are included beyond status and milestone organization, nor does it address authentication or error handling, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 description provides meaningful semantic context for all three parameters beyond what the schema offers. The schema has 0% description coverage (only titles), while the description explains that 'group' can be a slug or ID, 'status' accepts specific values (active, completed, archived) with a default of 'all', and 'limit' is a maximum with default 50. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('List projects') and the target resource ('for a Clink group'), with additional context about what information is shown ('Shows status and milestone organization'). It distinguishes itself from other list tools like list_groups or list_milestones by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_project or other project-related tools beyond the list action.

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 implies usage context by specifying it's for listing projects within a group, which suggests it should be used when you need to see multiple projects rather than a single one (get_project). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_milestones or list_proposals, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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