List projects

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scoping detail that only projects visible to the token are returned, which is useful context. However, it does not discuss pagination behavior, response format, or other behavioral nuances.

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 that is concise and front-loaded, stating the primary action and scope without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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?

With 13 optional parameters, no output schema, and only 54% schema description coverage, the short description is insufficient for an agent to understand common usage patterns, such as combining filters or using all_pages. It fails to explain the meaning of ambiguous parameters or provide guidance on pagination and limits.

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 54%, leaving several parameters (e.g., owned, starred, archived, order_by, visibility) without descriptions. The description only mentions search and membership filters, which are already described in the schema, adding marginal value beyond the structured data.

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 tool lists projects, specifies the scope ('visible to the token'), and mentions key filters (search and membership). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_group_projects or get_project.

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 accessible to the token, but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. It offers moderate context but no explicit guidance.

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