list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all projects' without mentioning pagination behavior, response format, or any potential side effects. Although 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm this or disclose any other traits beyond what the name already conveys.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 is incomplete for an agent that needs to know the output shape. There is no output schema, so the description should have explained what the response contains (e.g., a list of project objects with fields). It also does not mention pagination behavior or any limits. The schema's page/pagelen parameters imply some behavior, but the description does not tie them together.

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 input schema covers both parameters (page and pagelen) with descriptions describing their purpose and constraints. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning about how parameters affect results. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (List), the resource (projects), and the scope (in the workspace). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tags, list_repositories, and list_branches by naming a distinct resource, so the agent knows exactly which tool to use for listing 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like list_repositories. The agent must infer usage from the resource name alone.

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