list_seed_projects

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the source is live and 'Live pagination is not a frozen snapshot,' warning that page contents can shift between calls. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination cursor semantics.

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?

Six short lines, front-loaded with the core action and scoping constraint, with no filler sentences. The terseness borders on cryptic ('seed API,' 'next_page') but every sentence aims at real caller behavior.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool the description is largely adequate, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema it should clarify the pagination contract (what 'next_page' is and where it comes from) and it leaves both parameters' semantics unstated, leaving the caller to infer how to walk pages reliably.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description should carry the load, and it mostly does not – it never explains page or per_page ranges/defaults, only hinting that pages should be 'small'. Worse, it instructs the caller to 'Follow next_page,' a field that does not exist among the declared parameters and is undocumented anywhere, risking confusion about how to paginate.

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 states a concrete verb+resource – reading one page of a 'seed API' catalogue – and explicitly contrasts with searching ('does not search names'), which helps separate it from the search_software sibling. It is clear but never quite names itself as a listing/browsing tool in a way that fully maps to 'list_seed_projects'.

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?

It gives the selecting condition ('This browses the catalogue; it does not search names'), implicitly routing search intent to search_software, and tells the caller how to continue ('Follow next_page with the same per_page'). No sibling is named explicitly, so the routing is implicit rather than spelled out.

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