Projects List Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and mutability profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the mention of pagination, which is already visible as page/per_page in the schema; it discloses nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or result shape. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently written, though the terseness is part of the problem given how much parameter behavior goes unstated.

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 no explanation, but with 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage the description leaves the majority of the surface (sorting, archived filtering, default page size) undocumented. For a list tool with this many knobs, it is under-specified.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It alludes to filtering (filter_field/filter_value), phase inclusion (with_phases), and pagination (page/per_page), but gives no value syntax, and says nothing about sort_field, sort_order, or the archived flag.

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 (projects in Smartsheet RM), which is enough to separate it from projects_get_project and the create/update/delete siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or scoping the result set, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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 phrase 'with filtering, phase inclusion, and pagination' gestures at capabilities but never says when to choose this tool over projects_list_project_phases or projects_get_project. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no conditions that would route the agent to a sibling.

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