List My Projects

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, destructiveHint false, idempotent. The description adds that it returns a list with status, budget, and progress, and explains pagination via offset/limit. It doesn't discuss rate limits or data freshness, but the extra context is valuable.

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-organized: a one-sentence summary, then args in clear bullet-like format, then returns, then use-case. It is not overly verbose, though the return description could be slightly more concise. Still, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return value structure (list with status, budget, progress). It also explains pagination and provides a sophisticated multi-tool usage scenario. For a list tool with good annotations, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining defaults (e.g., role default 'freelancer'), clarifying the account parameter's reference to another tool, and providing human-readable explanations for enums. This goes beyond the schema's brief field descriptions.

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 projects the user owns or is hired on. It distinguishes from siblings like 'freelancer_search_projects' which searches all projects, and 'freelancer_my_bids' which lists bids. The verb 'list' combined with 'your projects' specifies the resource and scope.

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 explicit usage examples ('Show my active projects', etc.) and includes guidance on when to use it for analysis, pairing with 'freelancer_my_bids'. It tells the agent to reason over combined results, which is a clear usage scenario.

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