list_projects

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

Discloses default output format (compact summaries) and the option for full detail (verbose=true). Does not mention ordering, pagination, or error handling. With no annotations, the description provides basic but incomplete behavioral context.

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 concise sentences, no extraneous information. Front-loads key information. Every sentence adds value.

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 straightforward list tool with no output schema and moderate param count, the description covers basic functionality and output options. Lacks details on ordering, result set limits, and behavior when no results are found.

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 50%, partially compensated by description mentioning keyword, category, and recency. However, keyword and category lack format or constraints. The description adds 'recency' which is not a schema parameter, implying default ordering, which is helpful but vague.

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 uses specific verb 'Browse' and resource 'inferred projects', and lists filter criteria (keyword, category, recency). It clearly indicates the tool is for listing projects, distinguishing it from siblings like get_project_timeline or match_project.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not specify when not to use or mention sibling tools. The agent receives no help in deciding between list_projects and related tools like search or find_commits.

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