team_time_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information absent from annotations: results are paged and the next page is driven by page.nextCursor with a preserved limit, which is useful for pagination loops.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the pagination contract immediately after. Every phrase carries 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 simple two-parameter list tool this covers the pagination contract, which is the main risk area. But with no output schema, the description only reveals one return field (page.nextCursor) and says nothing about what a project record contains, whether an empty page signals the end, or default page size.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: "page.nextCursor" ties the cursor parameter to the returned continuation token, and "same limit" implies limit governs page size. It does not state the default limit, what the max of 100 implies, or cursor lifetime/stability.

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?

"Read one page of projects" gives a specific verb (read/list), a specific resource (projects), and the pagination scope. It is naturally distinguishable from siblings like team_time_list_members, team_time_list_tags, and team_time_list_tasks by resource, though it never states that differentiation explicitly.

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 second sentence gives operational guidance for continuing pagination (reuse the same limit with nextCursor), which implies this is a paged listing. However, it never says when to use this tool, when to stop, or how it relates to alternative listing tools, so usage is only implied.

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