List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by clarifying what 'protected' means ('readable but never mutated') and by stating that only allowlisted projects are returned, which is not implied by the 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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second lists the output fields, and the third gives practical usage guidance. The content is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the scope, and how to use it as a discovery starting point. The output schema is absent, so listing the returned fields is essential and adequately covered.

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 tool has zero parameterswing, so there is nothing meaningful for the description to add beyond the empty input schema. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description contains no ambiguous parameter references or required inputs.

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 names the exact resource ('projects in the Azure DevOps organization') and the specific scope ('that pass the allowlist'), and it lists the returned fields. 'Start here to discover valid project names' also signals the tool's role as the entry point, clearly distinguishing it from singular tools like get_project.

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?

'Start here to discover valid project names' provides clear guidance on when this tool should be used first. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_project when a single project's details are needed, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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