listProjects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context about environment variable fallback (AZURE_COLLECTION_URL vs AZURE_BASE_URL), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose the return format, pagination, or any authentication requirements, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a configuration detail without waste.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and adds a useful configuration note. However, it does not explicitly describe what the response includes (e.g., project IDs, names), which would be expected when no output schema exists. It is nearly complete but lacks that minor detail, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding any unnecessary parameter details.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'team projects in the Azure DevOps collection,' which is specific and unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools (getWorkItem, searchWorkItems) that deal with work items, not projects.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to list team projects in the collection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that the intended usage is obvious. No misleading guidance is present.

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