list_projects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds context about workspace membership but omits behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, or impact of include_archived default. Some added value but incomplete.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and scope. Could benefit from structured format (e.g., bullet points) but remains efficient.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimal. It does not clarify return format, sorting order, pagination, or permission requirements beyond membership. Sibling search_project suggests need for more detail.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., no explanation of UUID format or boolean default implications.

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?

Description clearly states 'List projects in a workspace that the user is a member of' with a specific verb (List) and resource (projects), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project, get_project, and search_project.

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?

Description implies usage context (listing projects in a workspace the user belongs to) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like search_project or when not to use it (e.g., for filtered results).

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