list_my_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, ordering, or what a 'project' record contains. For a list tool in a project-management sibling set, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information, and it omits return shape, default ordering, and relationship to get_project_info. It is too thin to let an agent call the tool with confidence.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify.

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 names a verb ('Listar') and a resource ('meus projetos IAdev'), so the basic purpose is inferable. However, it essentially restates the tool name 'list_my_projects' and adds no differentiation from siblings such as get_project_info or create_project, leaving scope and boundary unclear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternative tools like get_project_info for details on a single project. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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