Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-listProjects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List all projects,' which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose whether it returns all projects for the user, what fields are included, pagination behavior, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 terse sentence, 'List all projects,' with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the low complexity, the description is too bare to fully inform the agent about the response. With no output schema, the description should at least hint at what a 'list' returns (e.g., project IDs, names, statuses), whether archived projects are included, or if there's any scoping. The current text leaves too much to inference.

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 zero parameters and an empty schema, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameters.

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 lists all projects, using a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search or getTree tools, but the resource (projects) is unambiguous enough to distinguish it from create/delete/update actions.

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 search or getTree. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about filtering capabilities, so the agent receives no usage direction.

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