list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'accessible' projects which implies some permission/visibility constraints, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid organization slugs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating scope from output details, but there's no wasted text. Every element serves a purpose, though it could benefit from clearer organization.

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 read/list tool with 3 parameters (100% schema coverage) but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, errors, pagination) and usage guidance relative to siblings. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention return format expectations.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions viewing 'project slugs, IDs, status, settings, features, and organization details' which aligns with the 'view' parameter options, but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('accessible Sentry projects'), and specifies the scope ('accessible') and what information is included ('project slugs, IDs, status, settings, features, and organization details'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project' by being a read operation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'list_organization_replays'.

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 'list_project_issues' or 'list_organization_replays'. It mentions 'accessible' projects but doesn't explain what makes a project accessible or any prerequisites. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context.

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