list-projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional pagination' which is useful, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all projects in the workspace') and adds the key behavioral note ('with optional pagination'). There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields are returned, whether results are sorted/filtered, or any workspace context. The mention of pagination helps, but more behavioral context is needed given the lack of structured metadata.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (per_page with defaults/limits, cursor with format). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'optional pagination', which is already implied by the cursor parameter in the schema.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('projects in the workspace'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-project' or 'list-project-members', which would require a 5.

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' (for single project details) or 'list-project-members' (for project-specific members). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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