list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully and honestly reveals that the tool is a placeholder, always returns an empty list, makes no HTTP request, and that the contract is stable for future changes. It also references the upstream issue. This is exemplary transparency beyond what annotations could 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?

Each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the placeholder, the third clarifies no HTTP request, and the fourth provides context on stability. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff or redundancy.

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 it is a simple list tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's actual behavior (empty list, no request), its practicality (stable contract), and its future direction (transparent change). Nothing crucial is missing for the agent to use it safely.

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 schema documents both parameters (repo and owner) with descriptions that include their defaults and the placeholder behavior, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall purpose, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'List repository project boards (kanban).' The verb 'list' plus the specific resource 'project boards' with repository scope makes the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_project' (list vs. get) and other list tools (e.g., list_issues) by focusing on project boards.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'planning workflows can ask about projects without breaking.' It also explicitly states that the tool 'always returns an empty list' and 'No HTTP request is made,' which implies it should not be used when actual project board data is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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