list_allowed_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the allowlist-filtering behavior, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. Consistent with the annotation baseline, this adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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 wasted words. It communicates the action, resource, and key filtering constraint efficiently.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly mentioning that non-allowlisted projects will be omitted, but the phrase 'only projects in the configured MCP allowlist' strongly implies this.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic meaning by identifying the resource and the allowlist filter, which is sufficient since no parameter-level documentation is needed.

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 resource ('projects'), and adds a clear scoping qualifier ('only projects in the configured MCP allowlist'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project, which retrieves a single project, or list_tasks, which lists tasks rather than projects.

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 word 'only' and the phrase 'configured MCP allowlist' imply this tool should be used when the agent needs the restricted set of allowlisted projects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as a general project listing tool if one exists.

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