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 adds context about licensing requirements and input formatting ('Arguments must be provided as compact, single-line JSON'), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a list operation.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one for the core purpose and prerequisites, and another for input formatting. It's front-loaded with the main action, but the formatting note could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 complexity (a list operation with licensing constraints), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses details on parameter semantics, return values, error cases, and operational limits, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter 'clientId'. The description doesn't explain what 'clientId' is, its purpose, format, or how to obtain it. This leaves the parameter's meaning unclear, failing to add value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('List all projects') and resource ('from n8n'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools like 'list-executions' or 'list-workflows' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires n8n Enterprise license with project management features enabled'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get-workflow' or 'list-workflows', nor does it specify exclusions or complementary tools.

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