list-projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets a list' which implies a read operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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?

The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'list', 'projects/workspaces') earns its place. No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'project' or 'workspace' represents in this context, doesn't describe the return format, and provides no behavioral context. The agent would need to infer too much from just the schema parameters.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'workspaceName' interacts with the list) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get a list') and resource ('projects/workspaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish between 'projects' and 'workspaces' or clarify if they're synonymous, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-project-by-id' or 'list-prompts' which serve different but related purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list-projects' over 'get-project-by-id' for retrieving specific projects, or 'list-prompts' for different resource types. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage decisions.

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