List Tracker projects

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context not in the annotations: that this is the legacy Projects API superseded by entities_search, which affects whether the agent should call it at all. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination behavior for an org-wide listing.

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 short sentences, scope stated first and the routing hint second; nothing is wasted and the key fact (this is the legacy endpoint) is front-loaded.

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 and the description says nothing about return shape, result volume, or pagination for a listing that spans the entire organization. The legacy/alternative framing is helpful, but an agent still lacks the operational detail needed to call an org-wide list confidently.

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?

Only one optional parameter (`expand`) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it (including the `queues` example). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 the resource and its full scope ('Every project of the organization') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the newer sibling `entities_search`. An agent can tell immediately what it returns and how it differs from the alternative project-finding tool.

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 names the alternative (`entities_search`) and labels this one as the legacy API, which strongly implies 'prefer entities_search for new work.' However, it never states the condition under which an agent should still choose this tool, leaving that inference to the reader.

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