uselink_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses token-scope behavior and return fields, which is useful. However, it omits default behavior for archived projects (include_archived defaults to false) and pagination semantics, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, directly states action and key outputs, no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 description reports return fields (id, name, slug, default flag, archive state, document count), which is helpful given no output schema. However, it lacks parameter semantics and default filtering behavior, making the tool less complete than desired.

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?

The description provides no explanation of the three parameters (limit, offset, include_archived), and schema coverage is 0%. The description's mention of 'archive state' in returns does not clarify the include_archived parameter. This fails to aid the agent in parameter usage.

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 the verb 'List' with resource 'projects', clearly identifying the operation. It also distinguishes from sibling read_project (single project) by describing scope behavior for different token types, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description sets a clear context: when you need to list projects visible to the active PAT, use this tool. It also explains token scoping, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it.

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