upservice_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the return format (JSON list with fields) and pagination behavior (limit 1-100, default 25; offset default 0), going beyond what annotations provide.

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 a well-structured docstring with Args and Returns sections. The main sentence is concise, but the parameter list is somewhat redundant given the schema. It earns a 4 for clarity and front-loading of key information.

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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It mentions return format and pagination, though it could clarify edge cases like empty results or unavailable fields.

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 repeats parameter names and defaults already present in the schema (which has descriptions for each sub-parameter). Since schema description coverage is high (each parameter has a schema description), the description adds marginal value by summarizing them but does not clarify nuances or provide examples.

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?

Description clearly states 'List projects in the Upservice account' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like upservice_get_project (single) or upservice_create_project, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 implies usage for listing projects with pagination and filter options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upservice_get_project for a single project) or when not to use it. Basic guidance is present through parameter descriptions.

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