teamleader_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, absence of side effects, auth requirements, or response structure. 'List' weakly implies a read operation, but this is insufficient without annotation support.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and key capabilities are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the intended behavior.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not mention what the response contains or how filters like customer_id and customer_type interact. The agent can invoke the tool with zero parameters, but missing response context makes the definition incomplete for a tool with this parameter richness.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented individually. The description only adds the generic summary 'optional filtering and pagination,' which does not enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects from the Teamleader Focus (next-gen) projects module'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that get, create, update, or delete projects. The mention of the next-gen module adds further specificity.

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 through the verb and resource but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like teamleader_get_project or teamleader_list_tasks. It offers no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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