rm_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the list supports filtering, phase inclusion, and pagination, but does not go deeper into behavior like archived defaults, sort semantics, or open-world result implications.

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 wasted words. It is concise and readable, though it could carry more useful detail without losing clarity.

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?

Given 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. An agent does not know valid filter fields, how archived behaves, sort options, or when to use this versus sibling listing tools. The output schema helps but does not fill these usage gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions filtering, phase inclusion, and pagination at a high level, but does not explain parameter semantics such as filter_field, filter_value, sort_order, archived, or with_phases.

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 states the verb ('List'), the resource ('projects in Smartsheet RM'), and key capabilities (filtering, phase inclusion, pagination). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_get_project or rm_list_project_phases.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_get_project or rm_list_project_phases. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or suggested use cases.

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