list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool lists projects with services and status, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination, response format) or confirm idempotency. Basic information is present but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every word adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No wasted text.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: what it lists and why to use it. It mentions services and status, giving a reasonable expectation of the return object. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of ordering or limits), but overall it is sufficient for its complexity.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so no parameter descriptions are needed. The description does not need to add meaning beyond what the schema provides, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. Baseline score for no parameters is 4.

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 tool lists all projects with their services and status, using the specific verb 'Lista' and resource 'projetos'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_project' which retrieves a single project.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to discover what exists in the panel before operating, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, leaving some room for improvement.

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