list_projects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by listing the specific fields (visibility, tier, role, version) returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and output fields. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more concise by omitting 'with their' and using a colon.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple list operation, the description adequately covers the basic functionality. However, it does not mention whether filtering or sorting is possible, or how many projects are returned. The presence of a sibling 'search_projects' suggests additional context would help.

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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (0 params). The description clarifies what the tool returns but parameter details are not applicable. Baseline 4 is appropriate since description adds context about the output beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists projects the user owns or collaborates on, specifying attributes like visibility, tier, role, and current version. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_projects' by indicating it shows all projects without filtering.

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 for a broad overview of all projects, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_projects' (which likely supports filtering) or 'get_project' (for a single project). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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