list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint—only projects visible to the server's Redmine user are returned—but does not describe pagination or return format.

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 short fragment with no wasted words, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative or grammatically complete without becoming bloated, but it is 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?

For a simple paginated read-only list tool with rich schema and annotations, the description states what projects are returned but omits an explicit listing verb and any return-shape context. No output schema exists, so return values are left implicit, creating a minor gap even though the tool name helps.

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 coverage is 100%, and both limit and offset are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters work, so the baseline of 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?

The name supplies the verb 'list' and the description identifies the resource 'Projects' with a scope constraint ('visible to the server's Redmine user'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_project or list_project_members, but the core purpose is clear 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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It only states the scope of projects returned, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferable to get_project or other list tools.

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