List projects

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the pagination behavior (cursor-based continuation), which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention any rate limits, authorization requirements, or response format details, which are not required for a simple read-only listing but would add richness.

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 compact sentences deliver the essential purpose and the key pagination behavior with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the pagination note is immediately actionable.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only, paginated list tool with two fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly. The annotation covers the safety profile, and the schema covers the parameter details.

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%: limit is described as 'Page size (default 20)' and cursor as 'next_cursor from a previous response' in the schema itself. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, though it does reinforce the pagination relationship between the cursor and a prior response. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 and resource ('List projects in the Featureflip organization') and is clearly distinct from all siblings, which target flags, environments, and segments rather than projects. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from other list_* tools.

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?

Provides explicit pagination usage: 'pass cursor from next_cursor to continue.' This tells the agent how to fetch additional pages. It does not state when to use this over alternatives, but none of the siblings list projects, so there is no real alternative to exclude.

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