VPS_getProjectListV1

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a list of projects with specific fields, explicitly states that container stats are omitted, and points to another endpoint for detailed info. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only relevant details. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, listing returned data, noting omission, and providing an alternative. No unnecessary words.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, what is excluded, and how to get the excluded information. It covers the essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100% description coverage (parameter 'virtualMachineId' is described). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3. No extra semantic value is added.

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 it retrieves a list of all Docker Compose projects, specifies the returned information (name, status, file path, containers with details), and omits container stats. It distinguishes from the sibling tool VPS_getProjectContainersV1 by noting the omission and directing users to that endpoint for stats.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to get an overview of all Docker projects on your VPS instance.' Also provides a when-not-to-use condition: 'If you need to get detailed information about container with stats included, use the `Get project containers` endpoint.' This gives clear guidance on alternatives.

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