invoiceninja_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: relations are resolved automatically (e.g. client_name), and it documents the extra_filters contract that the schema defers to it for. Return-format behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Three front-loaded lines: purpose first, then the dense extra_filters reference, then the routing hint. Every sentence carries information, though the extra_filters line is a compact key dump that demands careful reading.

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 10 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and full schema descriptions, the only real gap the description must fill is the extra_filters contract — which it does — and it adds the relation-resolution note. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing, though it could say more about result shape.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the extra_filters parameter explicitly points back to the description for its key vocabulary, and the description supplies that vocabulary (number, assigned_user, created_between, tag_ids, assigned_user_ids). That meaningfully compensates beyond what the structured schema supplies.

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 projects from Invoice Ninja') plus the capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination). It also names the companion tool invoiceninja_get_project, so an agent can distinguish list-vs-fetch without opening a 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 explicit guidance on the extra_filters keys, including accepted formats for date ranges, tag ids, and comma-separated values, and says to follow up with invoiceninja_get_project using an id from this list. It does not position itself against sibling list tools such as list_records or search, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing.

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