List watchlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them with genuinely useful behaviour: only open projects are returned, closed watched projects silently drop off, and the result set changes over time — all things an agent cannot read off the annotations or schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payload before the pagination detail. There is minor redundancy between the first two sentences (both restate that these are the watched open projects), but nothing is padded or off-topic.

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 two-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is close to complete: population, return shape (by reference to search_projects), drop-off behaviour and pagination are all covered. Only an explicit routing statement against search_projects/list_my_projects is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond it by explaining the cursor/limit contract as a unit — reuse the same limit and feed next_cursor back as cursor — and by stating cursor is null on the last page, which tells the agent how pagination terminates.

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?

Specific verb plus a tightly scoped resource: 'open projects on this account's watchlist (Favourite Jobs)', with the returned fields named (budget, proposal count). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling that could be confused with it by noting the payload matches search_projects while the population is the watchlist, not a query.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the listing counterpart to watch_project/unwatch_project, but the description never says 'use this when you want the current watchlist' or excludes anything in favour of search_projects or list_my_projects. No prerequisites or when-not conditions are given.

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