Projects List Placeholder Resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond purpose - no pagination behavior, no volume expectations, no ordering guarantees - so it contributes little on top of the structured fields.

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 no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a paginated list endpoint.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gaps are pagination semantics and usage routing, which leave the definition merely adequate rather than complete.

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% for both parameters; page and per_page have only defaults, no semantics. The description does not compensate with any pagination guidance, so the agent cannot tell how to page through results or what the defaults imply.

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 ('List') and resource ('placeholder resources') and adds domain framing ('used for forecasting and capacity modeling') that separates this resource from the other projects_* list endpoints. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from its create/delete placeholder-resource siblings, though the list vs. mutation distinction is self-evident.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as projects_list_projects or projects_create_placeholder_resource. An agent gets only the bare purpose and must infer when this endpoint is appropriate.

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