list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for the cross-tool behavioral fact that the name returned here is what log_time accepts, which is not derivable from any structured field. It stops short of describing pagination behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Two sentences, filters front-loaded, and the second sentence is a genuinely useful routing hint rather than filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read-only, zero-required-param list tool with a full-coverage schema and an output schema, the description covers what is needed: what it lists, how it filters, and how its output is consumed downstream. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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% and all five parameters (limit, offset, query, status, customer) are documented there, including enum values for ProjectStatus. The description only restates the filter intent ('status, customer or a fragment of their name or code') without adding syntax, formats, or defaults beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (projects) plus the exact filter dimensions, which cleanly separates it from get_project (single fetch), list_projects_metrics (metrics) and export_projects (export). An agent can pick it out of a very crowded sibling set without opening the schema.

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?

Provides real when-to-use context by naming the downstream workflow ('starting point for logging time') and the tool it feeds (log_time). It does not, however, state when to prefer siblings such as get_project or list_projects_metrics, so the exclusion side of the guidance is missing.

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