list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that results are paginated (as indicated by cursor and per_page parameters), that ordering and field expansion are possible, or any auth/rate limit considerations. The phrase 'List all' could mislead an agent into expecting an unfiltered, unpaginated list.

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 single-sentence description is very concise with no waste, but it omits critical behavioral context that should be included. It is appropriately front-loaded but not sufficiently informative for a tool with pagination and expansion options.

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 has 5 parameters, pagination, and expansion capabilities, and lacks annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, ordering, field selection, or the presence of an output schema. An agent would need to infer behavior solely from parameter descriptions.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, nor does it need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 'List all projects in a workspace' clearly indicating the verb (list), resource (projects), and scope (all in a workspace). It distinguishes itself from retrieval tools like retrieve_project and creation tools like create_project, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools beyond the resource name.

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 siblings such as retrieve_project (for a single project) or search_work_items (for filtered search). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context.

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