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. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (default 50 results), authentication requirements, or that it is read-only. The description only explains parameters without additional insight.

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 extremely concise (4 sentences, no fluff) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool is a simple list, the description is mostly adequate but misses contextual completeness: no mention of pagination defaults, required authentication, or differentiation from similar 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'team_id' (scopes to team) and 'state' (lists possible values and default). However, 'after', 'first', and 'workspace' are not explained, leaving gaps.

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 states 'List projects' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_projects', which also lists projects but with different semantics (text search vs. filtering).

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 provides guidance on parameter usage ('team_id' and 'state' filters), but lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_projects' or 'get_project'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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