redmineflux_core_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the access scope ('has access to') and implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly disclose the absence of side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral details. This is adequate for a simple list operation but not rich.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses a structured Args block. Every sentence serves a clear function, with no redundant prose.

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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and the description covers the core behavior and all parameters. It provides sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description's Args section explains all three parameters (limit, offset, include) with meanings and defaults, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions (0% coverage). This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw 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 uses the imperative verb 'List' with a specific resource ('projects') and scope ('the API user has access to'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_project (which fetches a single 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists all accessible projects, implying its use case. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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