List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that filtering is optional and that projectId is the join key for other tools, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering — notable given openWorldHint=true.

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?

Two tight sentences: identity and scope first, filters second, downstream usage last. The Japanese glosses (プロジェクト, 工数) are the only extra tokens and they disambiguate domain terms.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what a returned project record contains (id, name, code, active period). It implies projectId but never states the returned fields or result ordering, which is a real gap for an agent constructing follow-up calls.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description only restates them at a high level ("filter by name/code" and "date the project is active on") and adds the useful but minor point that both are optional. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the company's projects") and scopes it to man-hour tracking, which an agent can distinguish from task/attendance siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, get_my_projects, leaving the company-wide vs. personal scope difference implicit.

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?

Gives clear downstream routing — "Use the projectId with list_tasks and save_manhours" — which tells the agent why it would call this first. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_my_projects over this list).

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