list_projects

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful behavioral context rather than repeating safety traits: it discloses pagination ('one page at a time'), the returned field subset, and that descriptions are intentionally excluded and available via get_project. This is sufficient and complementary.

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 sentences carry purpose, pagination behavior, field scope, and a pointer to the sibling tool for descriptions. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only listing with no required parameters and a full input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations. The description adds the remaining context needed for correct use: paging, returned fields, and the route to get_project for descriptions.

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; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents for limit, cursor, and include_archived. It therefore neither harms nor materially compensates for the schema, remaining at the baseline.

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 ('Lists'), targets a specific resource ('the installation's projects'), and scopes the result to one page with key, title, and archive time. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like get_project, which the description explicitly reserves for project descriptions.

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?

It gives clear context: this is the paged listing of projects, not the detailed view. It names get_project as the tool for descriptions, which is an explicit when-not for that use case, though it doesn't enumerate other sibling alternatives.

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