list_projects

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds detail about the Lucene filter behavior and the scope (user-accessible projects). It does not repeat safety info but adds value on syntax constraints, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a use case and a specific behavioral note. Every sentence is informative and not redundant.

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?

With an output schema existing, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, query behavior, pagination defaults, and usage context comprehensively. No gaps are apparent.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains the query parameter's Lucene syntax and wildcard restrictions, and notes default values for page_size and page_number. This adds value beyond the schema itself.

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 'List Polarion projects the authenticated user can access,' identifying the verb (list) and resource (projects). It also notes the tool's use case for discovering project IDs, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with work items or documents.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to discover project IDs for other tools, providing clear context. It also specifies that trailing wildcards are supported but leading wildcards are rejected, giving actionable guidance. No direct exclusions against siblings, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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