list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose key behaviors. It does not mention pagination (limit/offset), sorting, filtering, or potential empty results. The agent cannot infer the tool's complete behavior from this terse description.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and omits critical details. Every word is earned, but the description is too brief to be fully informative.

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's low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description could be more complete. It fails to mention the paginated nature of results (implied by input schema) and does not integrate with sibling tools or usage context.

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%, and the description fails to explain the purpose or effect of 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The agent receives no semantic help beyond the parameter names.

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 tool lists all registered projects with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_accounts, though the uniqueness of the resource (projects) makes it unambiguous. Lacks detail on what 'registered' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Agents have no context on whether there are more specific project listing tools or if this is the only option. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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