list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the table name (pm_project), which is useful context confirming the resource type, but it does not disclose paging, filtering semantics beyond the schema, or what happens with large result sets.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and resource and adding the table name as useful specification. It is appropriately terse for a simple list operation, though it stops short of adding routing guidance.

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 two optional parameters fully documented in the schema and safety annotations provided, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is no mention of return format or pagination behavior, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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%, so limit and query are already documented with their meanings and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline given that the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a resource ('SPM projects') with the underlying table name (pm_project), which is clear and concrete. It distinguishes from sibling create_project and update_project by nature of the list operation, though it does not explicitly elaborate on what SPM projects are.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_project or update_project are the appropriate choices for mutating projects, nor does it describe any conditions or prerequisites for listing.

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