list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though hinted by the 'pageSize' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all projects in OpenProject'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'projects' entail in OpenProject, how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., does it list all projects or only accessible ones?). For a list tool with no output schema, more context on return values would be helpful, making this description insufficient for full understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'pageSize' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no extra value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('projects in OpenProject'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'create_work_package' or 'update_work_package' by being a read operation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_statuses' or 'list_work_packages' beyond the resource name.

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 use 'list_projects' instead of other list tools like 'list_work_packages' or 'list_statuses', nor does it provide context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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