list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds the workspace scope and the 'call first' behavior, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or response format. It provides some context beyond annotations but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all projects in the workspace') and followed by a useful usage directive. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description covers the primary use case (getting a project_id). However, it omits details about pagination (despite cursor/per_page params) and does not describe the response structure, which would be helpful given there is no output schema. It is adequate but has 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%, and the description offers no explanation for the five parameters (cursor, expand, fields, order_by, per_page). With no parameter descriptions in the schema either, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer meaning only from parameter names.

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 a specific verb 'List' and resource 'projects in the workspace', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like retrieve_project (single project) and create_project/update_project/delete_project (mutations). It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 instruction 'Call this first whenever you need a project_id to pass to other tools' gives explicit, actionable guidance on when to use this tool. It does not contrast with retrieve_project when an ID is already known, but the directive is clear and contextually strong.

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