VPS_getProjectListV1

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately states what is returned (basic project info, container details but no stats) and that container stats are omitted. While it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, this is implied for a list endpoint. The description adds value beyond the input schema.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second details what is returned and what is omitted, and the third provides a use case and redirects to an alternative. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the output contents (name, status, file path, containers with names, image, status, health, ports) and notes omitted data (stats). It also points to a sibling tool for more detail. For a simple list endpoint, this is fairly complete, though it could mention pagination or error handling.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (virtualMachineId) is described as 'Virtual Machine ID'. The description does not add extra semantic context about the parameter, but it is adequate. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides the necessary information.

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 ('Retrieves a list') and clearly identifies the resource ('Docker Compose projects') and scope ('currently deployed on the virtual machine'). It distinguishes from sibling tool VPS_getProjectContainersV1 by noting that container stats are omitted and directing to that endpoint for detailed container information.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use this to get an overview of all Docker projects') and when not ('If you need to get detailed information about container with stats included, use the `Get project containers` endpoint'). This provides 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.