list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('List') and the authentication scope, but omits details about return structure, ordering, or potential limitations. This is adequate for a simple no-parameter tool but could be richer.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It includes only essential information: the action (list), the object (projects), and the scope (visible to API key).

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently conveys the core function and access control. The phrase 'List every...' implies a list return, and the authentication scope is a critical detail. It is complete enough for its simplicity, though an explicit return-format note could push it higher.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema covers 100% trivially. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 specific verb 'List', identifies the resource as 'TestLink test project', and clarifies scope with 'visible to the authenticated API key'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools for other entities (e.g., list_test_suites) and avoids tautology.

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 makes it obvious when to use this tool: whenever a user needs to enumerate TestLink projects. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool provides equivalent functionality, so the context is clear and no further guidance is necessary.

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