whodb_platform_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so 'This tool is read-only' is largely redundant. What the description does add is the org-resolution fallback order and the guarantee that workspace targeting does not mutate session defaults — meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with the declared read-only, idempotent profile.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the resolution rules. No filler, though the final workspace sentence is dense with nested concepts and could be slightly tighter.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the input schema documents all three parameters including the nested workspace object. The description covers default resolution and per-call targeting, leaving only minor gaps such as ordering or pagination behavior, if any exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by recommending a concrete fields selection (['id','name','slug','selected']) for discovery and by clarifying that workspace overrides are call-scoped only. That is additive semantic guidance rather than restatement.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List hosted WhoDB projects in one organization.' That cleanly separates it from project-scoped siblings like whodb_platform_project_health or whodb_platform_project_resources. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, so it lands just short of the top band.

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?

It explains the org defaulting chain ('If omitted, the selected organization is used... when the account has exactly one organization') and that workspace targeting applies per call 'without changing defaults.' That is real when-to-use context. It never says when to prefer this over whodb_platform_orgs or whodb_platform_hosts for target discovery, so no explicit alternative routing.

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