list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: Lucene query behavior with trailing wildcards allowed and leading wildcards rejected (HTTP 400). This goes 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical constraint on wildcard usage is stated clearly. Every sentence adds value.

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 present, return values need not be described. The tool is simple (list with three parameters), and the description covers purpose, use case, and a notable behavioral constraint. No gaps.

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 coverage is 33%; only 'query' has a description in the schema. The description enriches the query parameter with wildcard semantics. However, 'page_size' and 'page_number' lack additional semantic explanation beyond schema defaults and constraints.

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 Polarion projects accessible by the user. It mentions discovering project IDs for other tools, specifying the exact verb ('List') and resource ('projects'). Among siblings which focus on documents and work items, this tool uniquely targets projects.

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 indicates usage for discovering project IDs, which tells the agent when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the sibling set lacks another project-listing tool, so context is sufficient.

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