list_task_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states this is a read/list operation but doesn't describe pagination, potential volume of projects, authentication requirements, or what happens if the account is misconfigured. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a minimal disclosure that only implies safety.

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?

A single, clear sentence with zero superfluous content. It states the core action and target resource efficiently. There is nothing to trim.

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?

With a 1-parameter optional tool, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials. It could mention whether results are restricted to a particular Asana workspace or include archived projects, but for a simple list operation with rich structured metadata, this is adequately 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'account' parameter, which is already well-described in the schema ('Task account to query. If omitted, queries all authorized task accounts.'). The tool description doesn't add parameter context beyond what the schema already declares, so baseline 3 applies since 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 'List Asana projects for configured task accounts' uses a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (Asana projects), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on commitments, delegations, emails, or follow-ups. It lacks explicit mention of output scope but the action is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (querying task-related projects) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. There are no competing 'list projects' siblings, which softens the impact, but no clear when-to-use signal is present.

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