list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool lists with pagination, which is already implied by the schema parameters. It does not disclose whether authentication is needed, whether the list is scoped to accessible projects, or any rate limits or sorting behaviors.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core function and pagination feature, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.

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's simplicity (two optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable but not complete. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and any interaction with sibling tools, leaving gaps that a more thorough description could fill.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or constraints of the 'page' and 'page_size' parameters beyond the generic word 'pagination'. It fails to compensate for the schema's total lack of field descriptions, leaving users without details on defaults, boundaries, or result formats.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'OpenFic projects', making its purpose obvious. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_project (single project) and list_volumes/list_chapters (different resources), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope constraints beyond pagination.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project or search tools. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions; the context is neither stated nor implied beyond the basic action of listing projects.

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