list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose cursor-based pagination and optional name filtering, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits other characteristics like response shape or any side effects, which a fully transparent description might include.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the main functionality but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like search_projects and does not describe return values (no output schema). For a simple list tool, it is adequate but not fully complete given the ambiguous sibling relationships.

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 schema already offers 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming the name filter and mentioning pagination for large sets, which aligns with the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the tool lists Atlassian Projects with optional name filtering. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_projects or get_projects, which could lead to agent confusion.

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 implies usage for listing projects and specifically calls out pagination for large result sets, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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