core_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination details (beyond what's in the schema), error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple list operation. Every word earns its place.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more guidance would be helpful.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of projects in your Azure DevOps organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list/retrieve tools in the sibling set (like core_list_project_teams or repo_list_repos_by_project), which would require a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for filtering, or comparison to sibling tools like core_list_project_teams. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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