list_projects

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses the required auth scope. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, filtering behavior, or what project fields are returned.

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 sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately complete for a tool with two undocumented parameters.

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 list tool this is nearly complete at the name level, but it omits how filters work and, since there is no output schema, what a project listing returns. An agent would need to guess at parameter values and result shape.

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% for the two optional parameters, and the description does not mention them at all. It does not explain what values 'status' accepts or what 'client_id' filters by, leaving both parameters semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List projects'), and adds an auth scope ('needs read:projects'), so the basic operation is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like search or list_clients, but the resource name does most of that work.

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 parenthetical only states a permission prerequisite; it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus search, list_clients, or other siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative-selection conditions.

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