OpenPanel: List projects

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false — a mutation safety profile. The description presents this as a plain "List all projects" enumeration, which an agent will read as a safe read, directly conflicting with the destructive annotation. The only useful behavioral note, the root-mode client requirement, does not resolve that conflict.

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 with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second, which is a sensible order. The unexplained "[UNIFIED]" tag is the only wasted token.

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 list-everything call with no output schema, the agent gets no information about result shape, pagination, or volume, and the single required parameter is undocumented. Worse, the safety profile is misleading given the destructive annotation, so the description is not complete enough to call this safely.

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?

There is one required parameter, "site", with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — and it says nothing about what "site" means, its format, or whether it scopes the listing. This is a meaningful gap for a required argument.

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?

"List all projects via Manage API" states a specific verb and resource, and the plural "all projects" implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling openpanel_get_project. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained jargon, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 supplies one real prerequisite — "Requires 'root' mode client" — which tells the agent a usage condition ahead of time. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over openpanel_get_project or openpanel_get_instance_info, and no exclusions or failure conditions beyond that single prerequisite.

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