list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing beyond the read intent: no mention of pagination, result ordering, permission requirements, or project visibility scope. Only the implicit 'returns' wording signals it is non-mutating.

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 clause, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance and behavioral detail noted above.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value description is not required, and a zero-parameter list tool is simple enough that minimal text is survivable. Still, the absence of any usage or pagination context leaves it only marginally complete.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter syntax or format needs explaining.

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 ('Redmine のプロジェクト一覧を返す') and clearly distinguishes itself from the singular get_project sibling. It does not, however, contrast itself with create_project/update_project/delete_project or note list scope such as filtering.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over get_project for a single project, or whether it should be combined with list_issues. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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