list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' action is consistent. It adds valuable non-obvious behavior about Lucene query wildcard rules (trailing allowed, leading rejected) and clarifies that only accessible projects are returned. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, and the second adds a key constraint about wildcard usage. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, scope ('accessible'), and a critical query behavior. With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The only minor omission is pagination semantics, but the schema provides defaults and limits, making the description sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 only 33%, with only 'query' described. The tool description adds useful detail about the query format (e.g., 'name:ILCU*', trailing wildcards only), partially compensating. However, page_size and page_number are not explained in the description, though their names and schema constraints are fairly self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('accessible Polarion projects'), and adds context that it is the source of project IDs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle attachments, comments, documents, and work items.

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 phrase 'the source of project ids' gives clear context that this tool should be used when project IDs are needed. There are no sibling tools that list projects, so no explicit exclusion or alternative is required.

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