hex-list-projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers very little beyond the filter list. It does not disclose default return fields, whether results are paginated, whether trashed/archived/unlisted items are excluded by default, or permission requirements for 'viewable'. For a 13-parameter list tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification for a tool of this parameter count.

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?

With 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 38% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits pagination behavior, sorting, and the effect of the includeSharing/includeTrashed/includeArchived/includeUnlisted toggles, which an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate. The filter list maps meaningfully onto statuses, categories, creatorEmail, ownerEmail, and collectionId, but the four include* flags, sortBy, sortDirection, after, and limit receive no explanation in either the description or their schema entries.

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+resource ('List all viewable projects') and the 'viewable' qualifier hints at access-scoping, so the agent knows this is a read of a filtered project set. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like hex-get-project or hex-list-collections, leaving some ambiguity about which project-listing surface to use.

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 tells the agent which dimensions can be filtered (status, category, creator, owner, collection), which implies when the tool is useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no exclusions, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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