list_hex_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('JSON string with list of projects'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details like whether this is paginated (implied by limit/offset parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral aspects unclear.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors), and doesn't clarify the relationship with sibling tools. The mention of return format is helpful but insufficient for a list tool with pagination parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. However, the description doesn't mention the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters at all, nor does it explain their purpose (e.g., pagination). The baseline is 3 because the schema itself provides parameter definitions (with titles and defaults), but the description adds no semantic value beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Hex projects'), and specifies the scope ('all available... that are in production'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_hex_projects' or 'get_hex_project', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'search_hex_projects' or 'get_hex_project'. It mentions the scope ('in production') but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what the alternatives are for.

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