alga_projects_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — results are paged — but says nothing about default page size (25), maximum limit (100), ordering defaults, whether a total count is returned, or what an empty result looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the resource plus pagination constraint is front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing in the description could be cut without losing information.

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 seven-parameter read-only list with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description covers the browse-and-filter case adequately but leaves pagination mechanics and return shape unexplained. An agent can call it, but may misuse limit/page or overlook the status-ID dependency.

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 only 14%, so the description must carry more weight. It names the three meaningful filters (client_id, status, search), which is useful, but says nothing about the pagination or ordering parameters (page, limit, sort, order) or which sort field is the default, leaving most of the seven parameters to be read off the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List projects") plus a pagination scope ("one page at a time"), which cleanly separates it from alga_projects_get and the tasks/phases siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the resource name rather than stated.

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?

"Use to browse or filter by client, status or search" gives a clear usage context and implicitly tells the agent this is the multi-record retrieval path. However, it offers no when-not guidance, no pointer to alga_statuses_list for the status ID it depends on, and no mention of when to prefer search or the get variants.

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