list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not describe pagination, default limits, status handling, or the structure of the returned project list, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant details. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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 list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention how the tool handles status, sqlfilters, or the return format, nor does it provide selection context among the many sibling list tools. This leaves the agent under-informed.

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 schema describes status and thirdparty_id, but limit and sqlfilters are undocumented. The description adds no parameter information, so it does not compensate for the 50% coverage gap. However, the existing schema descriptions are clear, so this is an adequate baseline.

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 'Lister les projets Dolibarr' clearly states the tool lists Dolibarr projects, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from the singular get_project sibling by virtue of the plural 'list', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project or other list tools. There is no mention of filtering, pagination, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage context.

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