list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavior. 'List' suggests a read-only operation and 'with task counts' discloses the computed output, but the description does not clarify how the two filters combine, what statuses are valid beyond examples, or whether any default filtering occurs.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose before the Args section. There is no filler or redundant wording, and the parameter explanations are brief but useful.

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 an output schema, the return structure is already covered externally. The description handles the purpose and both parameters adequately, though a short note on when to choose list_projects over project-report siblings would make it fully complete.

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 Args section is essential and it does compensate: it explains that status_filter filters by status with active/archived examples and kind_filter filters by kind with project/area examples. It does not provide exhaustive allowed values or combination semantics, but it adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'List all projects with task counts', a clear verb+resource statement that establishes the tool as a project listing endpoint. It is distinguishable from list_notes/list_folders/list_tasks by resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from project-related siblings like get_project_status or get_area_report.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_status, get_project_progress, or get_area_report. The description only states what the tool does and describes its filters, leaving the agent to infer the right selection context.

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