list_projects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the vendor/portal scope and the workspace_id's cross-tool importance, but does not go further into pagination behavior, result limits, or multi-session edge cases.

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 core purpose, the key output field, and the mental model ('project switcher') with no redundant wording. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 tool is simple, has no required parameters, and is marked read-only. The description covers what the tool lists, the returned fields, and why the workspace_id matters. The input schema covers both parameters, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so page and origin are already fully documented. The description does not repeat parameter details, which is fine; it adds value by clarifying what the tool returns rather than how inputs behave.

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 clearly identifies the action ('List'), the resource ('your projects'), and the vendor-specific naming ('HoneyBook calls them events'). It also enumerates the returned fields, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_project.

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 gives a strong usage cue by stating that it returns workspace_id 'that every other workspace tool takes' and calling it 'the portal's project switcher.' This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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