get_projects

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail—that results are scoped to the authenticated account's visibility—but it does not disclose default status filtering, pagination, ordering, or whether archived projects are included by default.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately terse, though it is lean enough that additional context about defaults or alternatives would have made it more helpful.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves response shape and default behavior unspecified, and it does not orient the agent among the many sibling project-related tools.

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%, and both parameters have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but since the schema already documents status and include_extra well, a 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 uses the verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'projects visible to the authenticated account', making the collection-level read intent clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_project or get_project_members, but the plural 'projects' plus the visibility scope is enough for basic distinction.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_project, get_project_members, or get_project_stats. The context is only implied by the verb 'list', and no exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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