botdigit_list_projects

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: 'live marketplace projects' (scoping to active listings), and support for filters, text search, and pagination. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, default page size, or whether results include full project details or summaries. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No waste, but the second sentence is a bit generic ('Supports category filters, text search, and pagination') and could be more specific, though it's still informative.

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 4 optional parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers core functionality but omits return format, pagination behavior, and any usage context relative to siblings. An agent could call it correctly, but would lack confidence about result structure and when to prefer it over other listing tools.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely summarizes capabilities. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Search and browse live marketplace projects on BotDigit.' Clear what it does, but no sibling differentiation—doesn't contrast with botdigit_get_project or botdigit_list_my_bids. An agent can infer it's a list/search tool from the name and description, but the description doesn't help distinguish it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this over alternatives like botdigit_get_project or botdigit_list_my_bids. The description mentions supported features (filters, search, pagination) but not when to choose this tool versus a single-project fetch or a bid list.

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