list_projects

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results are limited to projects the user has access to, but it incorrectly says 'all' when the limit parameter caps results (default 20, max 100). It also does not mention read-only behavior or authentication requirements beyond the schema's token parameter. The 'all' claim is misleading and lowers 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 simple list tool, the schema fills in parameter details, but the description leaves gaps: it does not state what the return value looks like (e.g., an array of objects), and the 'all' claim conflicts with the limit parameter. The relationship to sibling tools is absent. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with detailed info (limit range, token purpose, platform enum). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain how 'all' relates to the limit 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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('projects/sites'), and scopes it to 'a platform that you have access to'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (check_deployment_status, watch_deployment, etc.) by being the only listing/discovery tool. The purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention that this is a prerequisite for other deployment-related tools, nor does it give context about when listing projects is appropriate. Usage is only implied by the name.

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