List projects

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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing compatibility with project-scoped API keys, which affects how an agent should authenticate and interpret the returned project list. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the authentication note is the only additional detail. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter list operation, the description names the resource, the returned fields, and an important API-key constraint. A more explicit response shape would be helpful given the lack of an output schema, but the open-world annotation and the simple scope keep this from being a major gap.

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 the schema is trivially fully described, so the description does not need to document parameter semantics. It still adds context about the returned content (ids), which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 names the resource ('projects of the organization') and the key output ('their ids'), and the title supplies the verb 'List'. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools focused on event definitions, properties, queries, and replays.

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?

It gives relevant context by noting that the tool works with API keys scoped to specific projects, which implies an authentication prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like posthog_api_get or posthog_query, or when it should not be used.

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