pipedrive_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 tool is safe. The description adds that paginated results are returned, requires the Projects add-on, and notes the API is in public beta. This provides useful context beyond annotations.

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 sentences with essential information: action, filtering, pagination, prerequisites. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence 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?

Covers basic functionality, pagination, and add-on requirement. No output schema exists, so description does not detail response structure. However, parameter descriptions are complete, making the tool usable. Could mention cursor usage for pagination.

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%, meaning the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions optional filtering by board, phase, or status, which maps to parameters but does not add new semantics or format details.

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 that the tool lists projects with optional filtering, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects'). It distinguishes from siblings like pipedrive_create_project or pipedrive_get_project by nature, but does not differentiate from pipedrive_search_projects or pipedrive_list_archived_projects, which could cause confusion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pipedrive_search_projects or pipedrive_list_archived_projects. The description implies basic listing with filtering, but the agent is not told about trade-offs or exclusions.

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