list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are ordered most-recently-updated first — but says nothing about result volume, truncation, or pagination for what could be a long list.

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?

A single tight sentence with the ordering fact front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, which is a completeness problem, not a conciseness one.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed, and annotations cover safety. However, for a filtered list tool the missing pieces are the meaning of the `status` filter and any indication of pagination or result limits — both are absent.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining `status`, and it never mentions the parameter at all. The enum values (active/done/abandoned) are self-explanatory, but the description doesn't confirm that status filters the list or that omitting it (null default) returns all projects.

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+resource ("List orchestration projects") plus the ordering guarantee, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_project or list_workflows. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Listing semantics imply when to call it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_project (single project) or job_list/build_list, nor any note on whether it's paged or bounded. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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