gns3_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists projects 'with detailed status' and shows specific fields (name, ID, counts, status), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (implied by username/password parameters), rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with authentication parameters.

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 and front-loaded, with two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on output details, with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with authentication parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It explains what the tool does and output fields but lacks crucial context like parameter semantics and behavioral transparency, making it minimally adequate but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no information about the three parameters (server_url, username, password), failing to explain their purposes, formats, or authentication implications. The description focuses on output details instead, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all projects on the GNS3 server with detailed status.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('projects'), and scope ('all'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gns3_get_project' (which retrieves a single project) or 'gns3_get_topology' (which may provide different structural details).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools like 'gns3_get_project' for single-project details or 'gns3_get_topology' for topology-specific data, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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