list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that results include model defaults and that exactly one environment is selected, going beyond annotations. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or error handling for invalid environments, so the added behavioral context is minimal.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, and scoping condition directly, and every word contributes meaning.

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 read-only list tool, the description provides the essential call context: one environmentId, projects with model defaults, and no mutation. The lack of output schema and pagination guidance leaves some details to inference, but the tool's basic nature and optional parameters are adequately understood from schema defaults and the generic 'list' framing.

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%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters. It maps 'explicitly selected environment' to the required environmentId parameter, which is helpful. However, limit and offset are completely unmentioned, leaving their defaults, bounds, and purpose underspecified despite the schema having no descriptions either.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('projects and their model defaults'), with a clear scoping qualifier ('on one explicitly selected environment'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_environments, which targets environments rather than projects. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'on one explicitly selected environment' clearly communicates that this tool should be used when an environment is already chosen, and that the caller must supply an environmentId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough for a read-only list operation. A small gap is that it doesn't point users to list_environments as the way to discover valid environments.

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