List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the return fields (ids, clients, archived state) but does not disclose pagination behavior or any other side effects. This matches a baseline level of added context.

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 concise phrase, 'Projects in the workspace, with their ids, clients and archived state,' with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easily scanned.

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 list tool with a rich schema (10 parameters, all documented) and annotations indicating read-only safety, the description is adequate. It states the primary output fields and workspace scope. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of returned fields, though pagination edge cases are left to schema parameters.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter details. It mentions 'clients' but that is a return field, not a parameter. Baseline of 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 title 'List projects' provides the verb, and the description 'Projects in the workspace, with their ids, clients and archived state' clearly states the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like find_project or get_project by indicating a workspace-level listing of all projects, though the description itself lacks an explicit verb.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clockify_find_project or clockify_get_project. The description only implies workspace-level listing, but does not specify exclusions or recommend alternatives for filtered single-project lookups.

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