list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so 'reads only' is largely redundant. However, the 'Bounds' line adds genuinely new behavior: a single request to Odoo.sh and a hard cap of 200 items (default 50), which the annotations do not express.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then clearly labelled Returns / Touches / Bounds blocks. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded or restated for its own sake.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it still names the key fields and the `truncated` flag. Combined with the sequencing rule and request bounds, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool is missing.

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 0% for the single `limit` parameter, so the description must carry the semantics. It does: 'limit items, 50 by default and 200 at most' supplies both the default and the upper bound, with only the units/meaning of 'items' left implicit.

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 Odoo.sh projects the user can reach') and implicitly scopes it against siblings like list_branches and list_builds, which operate on a project rather than the project list. An agent can distinguish this tool without opening any schema.

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 an explicit ordering rule: 'Call it first: every other tool takes a project by its name.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool is required relative to every sibling tool, which is the only routing decision that matters for a discovery/list call.

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