runrunit_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It states a read-only listing operation and enumerates filters, which is transparent about scope. However, it does not disclose pagination defaults, whether filters are mutually exclusive, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and then list filters in compact form. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 list tool with six optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description supplies adequate contextual shorthand. It could mention response shape or default pagination behavior, but the low complexity and lack of an output schema keep this gap minor.

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 schema already describes every parameter at 100% coverage. The description restates parameter names but adds no extra semantics beyond confirming they are optional.

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?

Description opens with 'List all projects from Runrun.it', a concrete verb-resource pair that clearly identifies the operation. The 'projects' resource distinguishes it from sibling task-centric tools like runrunit_list_tasks.

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 establishes a clear context: use this tool when the goal is to enumerate projects, and the optional filter list indicates how to narrow results. It does not explicitly name exclusions or compare with sibling list tools, but the resource distinction is sufficiently clear.

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