list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds one genuinely useful scoping fact — document content is excluded — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what 'selectable' means operationally.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the primary resource, with the scope constraint appended. Zero waste.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented include_archived parameter, which leaves the agent guessing about archived-project behavior despite otherwise adequate context.

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%: the single parameter include_archived has only a default value and no prose. The description never mentions archived projects, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap in the one place it could add value.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (projects), and adds scope qualifiers: 'selectable' and 'their BMC product versions without document content'. This differentiates it reasonably from list_products/list_versions by tying versions to projects, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it is not.

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?

'Selectable' weakly implies this is a precursor to set_active_project, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., get_active_project for the current selection). The agent must infer the workflow.

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