list_projects

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

The description says 'List all projects' but the schema includes pagination parameters (page, per_page), meaning a single call does not necessarily return all projects. The lack of annotations places the burden on the description, which fails to disclose pagination behavior, portal selection, or read-only guarantees.

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 sentence that is easy to parse. However, it omits potentially relevant nuances like pagination and portal context, making it slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 with two optional parameters, the description provides a basic understanding but lacks important context: it does not explain how the portal is selected (since no portal parameter exists), how pagination works to retrieve all projects, or what fields are returned. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more detail would improve completeness.

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 100%, with both parameters (page, per_page) already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('projects'), and clarifies scope ('in a portal'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_portals and get_project, which are named differently and pertain to different resources or actions.

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 (when you need to list projects) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like search or list_tasks. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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