list_projects

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

Annotations already communicate the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds the 'all projects with optional filtering' scope, which is useful, but it does not add further behavioral detail such as default pagination or result shape. 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?

A single sentence that states the action, resource, and filtering capability with no wasted words. The key scope ('List all projects') is front-loaded.

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?

Given the low complexity, zero required parameters, full schema description coverage, and strong read-only annotations, the definition is effectively complete for invoking the tool. It could mention pagination defaults or return format, but the schema already documents the offset parameter.

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%, so all three parameters already have explicit descriptions. The tool description merely restates name/status filtering without adding new semantic details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') with a clear resource ('OpenProject projects') and names the optional filters ('by name and status'). It is readily distinguished from sibling tools like get_project, list_work_packages, or list_project_types.

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?

Use is implied by the imperative description: call this tool when you want a list of projects rather than a single project or work packages. However, no alternatives are explicitly named and no when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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