List projects

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing that results are filtered by an allowlist, which helps set expectations that not all organization projects may be returned. This is useful information beyond the structured 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource, scope, and filtering behavior with no wasted words. It is immediately understandable and appropriately sized for a simple parameterless tool.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what is listed, at what scope, and that filtering applies. No critical invocation details are missing.

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 takes zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter gap for the description to fill. The description's mention of organization scope and allowlist filtering adds context but is not required for parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List projects in the organization', with a clear scoping qualifier '(filtered by the allowlist)'. It is distinct from the sibling get_project (list vs. single) and from other list_* tools by naming the resource directly.

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 makes the basic context clear: it lists organization projects, filtered by an allowlist. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_project or mention any exclusions, leaving the choice mostly to inference from the name.

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