backlog_get_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read operation that returns a list of projects with specific fields (numeric ID, key, name, archived status). It also specifies the scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'), which is crucial for an agent to understand what data it can access.

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, with only three sentences. Each sentence serves a clear purpose: stating the action, describing the output and usage hint, and explaining the optional parameter. No redundant or vague language.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately completes the picture. It specifies the return fields, hints at usage in another tool, and explains the parameter behavior. No additional information seems necessary for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'archived', and both schema and description cover its semantics. The description adds slight extra context by explicitly stating the default value ('false = active only') and the three states, which helps clarify behavior beyond the schema's concise description.

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 'Fetch the list of Backlog projects', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning how the numeric ID is used in backlog_get_issue_list, providing context for differentiation.

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 explains when to use this tool: to get a list of projects accessible to the user. It provides guidance on using the returned numeric IDs in another tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools (all getters for specific entities) makes the usage domain clear.

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