Project list

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context about the output fields and the tool's role as an ID source, but it does not disclose details like pagination, ordering, or whether the project list is exhaustive.

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?

A single sentence delivers the core purpose and the key detail about returned fields. There is no redundant phrasing or repetition of the title or schema information.

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, the description is complete: it states what is returned and why an agent would use it. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by naming the expected fields, and annotations cover the safety profile.

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, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description still adds value by explaining that the returned project IDs are meaningful inputs for project time filters, which is the closest relevant semantic context.

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 identifies the tool as listing all projects and specifies the returned fields: ID, name, and active status. It also distinguishes itself from sibling time-entry tools by framing the output as the source of project_id values for time filters.

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 a concrete use case: use this tool to obtain project_id values before applying project time filters. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the stated purpose is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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