openpanel_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'List' which implies read-only access, but provides no details on pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what data is returned. For a tool fetching project data, the lack of disclosure on filtering capabilities or data scope is a significant gap.

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 brief but includes metadata leakage ('[UNIFIED]') that appears to be internal tagging rather than helpful documentation. While short, it wastes the opening clause on implementation detail rather than user-facing guidance. The single sentence structure is efficient but the content is underwhelming.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description fails to explain the required 'site' parameter or what constitutes an OpenPanel project. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'list_projects' and 'n8n_list_projects', additional context on OpenPanel-specific project attributes or return structure was expected but absent.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the 'site' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no compensation for this gap—there is no explanation of what 'site' refers to (URL, ID, slug?), its format, or where to obtain valid values. This is a critical failure for a required parameter.

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 identifies the action (List) and resource (OpenPanel projects), distinguishing it from the generic 'list_projects' and platform-specific 'n8n_list_projects' siblings. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise rather than functional documentation, and no scope limitations are mentioned.

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 (e.g., 'openpanel_get_project' for specific projects), no mention of prerequisites (OpenPanel authentication), and no indication of expected use cases. The description is purely descriptive without advisory content.

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