list_project_attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned records, which is valuable with no output schema, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or how the isDeleted parameter changes results.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what comes back, with the follow-on usage note second. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 three fully undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, an agent cannot tell from the definition how to scope the request (no required params) or what isDeleted does. The return-field list helps, but the input side is left entirely to inference for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters (isDeleted, projectId, projectName) are explained in the description. It does not clarify whether projectId and projectName are alternatives, why both are optional, or whether isDeleted includes or excludes soft-deleted attributes.

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?

"List custom attributes of a project" is a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, isRequired, options). It is distinct from siblings like get_project or list_projects, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 second sentence gives a downstream usage note: use the returned attribute ids as keys of "attributes" when creating work items or test plans. That implies why the tool exists but never states when to call it versus alternatives or any preconditions, so guidance is only implied.

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