list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't mention pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data is included in the returned list. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns multiple items.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 an output schema (which should document return values) and no parameters, the description is minimally complete. However, as a list operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention basic behavioral aspects like whether it returns all projects or has pagination. The presence of an output schema prevents this from being a complete failure.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter gaps, and it correctly implies no filtering parameters by not mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('list of Redmine projects'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'list_issues', which would require specifying this is for listing all projects without filtering.

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 sibling tools like 'get_project' (for single project details) or 'list_issues' (for issues within projects), leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

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