List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the default filter (active only) and the opt-in for archived projects, which is the key behavioral trait of this tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope/return fields, identifier convention, archived toggle), with the primary scope statement front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.

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, has an output schema so return structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description completes the picture with default filtering, the archived override, and the identifier convention used by sibling tools.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by documenting the label format ("Client / Project") used to identify projects elsewhere, which the schema does not carry.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource plus the returned fields (client, hourly rate), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings that also enumerate projects-adjacent data (list_clients, get_client), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives real operational guidance: reference projects by "label" ("Client / Project") or id, and set include_archived to widen scope. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use steering (e.g., versus get_client or project_totals), but the context it provides is clear and actionable.

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