list_projects

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

None annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. Listing is read-only by implication, but nothing states this explicitly, nor is there any note about the output shape, ordering, or what each status means. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond naming the action.

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?

Five words, no filler, well under the size limit. Every word earns its place, but this is more under-specification than disciplined conciseness.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% description coverage, the description is minimal. It lacks mention of result shape, default behavior (all statuses if omitted), and any ordering. For a simple tool it's borderline, but given zero supporting context, a mark of 2 is fair.

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% and the description offers no parameter details beyond the enum values visible in the schema itself. The 'status' filter meaning (filtering which projects to return) is implied but never stated in the description, so it adds no value over the schema.

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?

'List projects with status.' identifies the verb (list) and resource (projects), which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like list_tickets or list_leads; the 'projects' resource mostly differentiates it, but no scope is described (e.g., pagination, owner scope). It's clear but minimal.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when filtering by status is appropriate, no exclusion of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the description.

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