list_projects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool as non-destructive. The description adds that it supports filters, sorting, and pagination, but does not disclose further behavior beyond what annotations and schema already provide. With annotations present, the description adds limited additional transparency.

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 sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word contributes value.

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?

The description covers the key aspects of the tool: listing, filtering, sorting, and pagination. It does not explain the return format or what 'visible' means, but for a list discovery tool with good annotations, this is sufficient. Could be slightly more detailed about output.

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 20% (only the 'query' parameter has a description). The tool description mentions 'native filters, sorting, and pagination', indirectly hinting at the sort, filters, and pageSize parameters, but does not provide details about their syntax or meaning. This partially compensates for schema gaps but does not fully explain all parameters.

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 'List visible projects' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives: 'use get_project when the target is already known and count_projects when only a total is needed.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to discover project IDs or identifiers') and when not to (use get_project for known targets, count_projects for totals). This helps the agent make correct selections.

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