qobrix_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the return shape: 'Returns { data: [...], pagination: { count, current_page, has_next_page, ... } }' and a relational detail: 'Properties reference their project via the "project" FK.' However, it does not mention rate limits, permissions, or error behavior, though for a read-only list operation these may be less critical.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds context, though the 'Verified include' line is somewhat redundant with the schema's include description. Overall appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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?

Considering the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It provides the return shape, pagination, a key foreign-key relationship, and a workflow hint. Missing explicit read-only confirmation and edge-case behavior, but sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; the 'Verified include' list repeats the include parameter's documented options. No new parameter semantics are introduced in the description.

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 and resource: 'List projects (property developments/complexes) — RESO Project equivalent for off-plan and new-build listings.' It distinguishes from singular get_project by being plural, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling qobrix_search_projects, which is a similar listing/search tool.

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?

Some usage context is provided: 'relevant in the Listing Lifecycle for new-builds' and a workflow hint 'to see units in a project, qobrix_search_properties with project == "<uuid>"'. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use list_projects vs search_projects, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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