focus_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the action (list projects) but omits important behaviors such as pagination defaults, filtering semantics (e.g., whether archived projects are included by default), or response format. The 'Not Track' is a product distinction, not a behavioral trait. This minimal disclosure leaves significant gaps for a tool with 10 filter parameters.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It front-loads the core action and includes a brief product clarification ('Not Track'). There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise.

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 the tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context of use. It does not mention return structure, default behaviors, or the significance of the many filter options. The description is far from complete for a tool of this complexity, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

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 50% (5 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Parameters like 'pinned', 'archived', 'completed', and 'client_id' remain ambiguous without additional explanation. Since the description does not compensate for the half of parameters lacking schema descriptions, it fails to clarify semantics for those fields.

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 tool's function: 'list projects in a workspace' with the verb 'list' and resource 'projects'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like focus_get_project (singular) and focus_create_project/update_project by focusing on listing multiple projects. The 'Not Track' note clarifies the product scope, not the action, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 like focus_get_project for a single project, or focus_list_tasks for related resources. The only contextual note 'Not Track' clarifies the API domain but does not address use cases or exclusions. There is no mention of when listing projects is appropriate or when another tool would be better.

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