list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It declares 'Read-only', specifies the return includes 'per-severity vulnerability counts', and explains parameters like pagination and filtering details (e.g., case-insensitive substring, max page size). This provides substantial transparency, though it omits rate limits or authorization requirements.

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 concise and well-organized, starting with a summary sentence, then a second sentence on output and safety, followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (filtering, pagination) and the presence of an output schema for return values, the description covers key aspects: filtering, pagination details, read-only assurance. It lacks an explicit mention of ordering, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is nearly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is essential. It adds a dedicated 'Args' section explaining each parameter beyond the schema's titles: name_filter (case-insensitive substring), active_only (exclude inactive), page (1-based), page_size (max 500). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's verb and resource: 'List Dependency-Track projects'. It also specifies the operations: listing all projects with optional filtering by name substring, and indicates the output includes vulnerability counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_findings (which lists findings) and upload_bom (which uploads).

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 usage is implied by the tool's purpose—listing projects—but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_findings or search_vulnerability. It mentions 'Read-only', which hints at safe use, but lacks direct guidance on context or exclusion criteria.

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