list_my_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 mentions 'heuristic filtering' and a specific unreliability case, which adds transparency, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or detailed behavior beyond that caveat.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the caveat follows immediately. Every word serves a 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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It covers purpose and one usage caveat, but lacks parameter documentation and broader behavioral details, making it insufficient for confident use.

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 description does not mention the single 'keyword' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain what the parameter does or how to use it, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.

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 action (list projects) and the scope (I participate in) with a specific qualifier (heuristic filtering). It differentiates from sibling tools which focus on bugs. However, 'heuristic filtering' is somewhat vague.

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 a negative usage guideline (not reliable for certain project sets) but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions or alternatives. It hints at limitations but does not compare to siblings.

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