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. It does disclose that results are grouped by area and include status and member info, which is useful. However, it omits key behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, ordering, filtering, or whether archived projects are included, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope, while the second adds a concise summary of the return structure. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simple listing tool, the description effectively communicates the high-level return content ('grouped by area with status and member info'). However, since there is no output schema, the description should ideally clarify pagination behavior (e.g., that multiple pages exist), which is only implied by the schema parameters. This minor gap prevents a 5.

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% for the two parameters (page and per_page), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all projects in the organization.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project (single project) and get_project_board (board view), and adds unique details by stating projects are 'grouped by area with status and member info.'

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project or list_project_members. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit context for choosing this tool over others, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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