list_projects

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('List') and adds the OAuth prerequisite, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination, error behavior, or output shape, leaving moderate gaps for a tool with no 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is placed efficiently after it. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the prerequisite and purpose but omits what exactly is returned and how the required portal_id should be obtained, leaving an agent to infer those details from sibling tools or runtime behavior.

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 schema provides no description for portal_id (0% coverage). The description ties the parameter to 'in a portal,' giving some meaning, and the purpose sentence implies the output contains project_id. But it doesn't explain where portal_id comes from or any format constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('List all projects in a portal') and immediately clarifies the downstream purpose: picking a project_id for select_portal_and_project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_portals, which lists portals, and select_portal_and_project, which selects rather than lists.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires configure_oauth first') and frames when the tool is useful ('so a project_id can be picked for select_portal_and_project'). It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it versus other siblings, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when it applies.

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