sx_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only keyword LIKE matching; it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor describe return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. Minimal transparency beyond the one 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 very short (two sentences) with no fluff, which is concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity sacrifices informative content; while concise, it might be considered under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It omits pagination details, field selection, and typical return structure. It only covers keyword search, leaving many aspects an agent would need to call the tool correctly unexplained.

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%, so the description should explain parameter semantics. It explains only 'keyword' behavior, leaving 'fields', 'order_by', 'page_size', and 'page_index' entirely undocumented. The description adds some value for keyword but fails to compensate for the other four parameters.

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 clearly states the tool queries the project archive (bdi_projectfile) and indicates keyword does LIKE matching on project name, making the resource and action explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools, though the specific resource (projects) offers some distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sx_list_query or sx_get_by_id. The description gives no context for choosing it over other list/query tools, and there are no exclusions or alternative references.

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