projects_list

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cursor-based pagination and filtering options but lacks details on default behavior (e.g., sort order, archived inclusion default), rate limits, authentication requirements, or response structure (e.g., total count, cursor format). This is insufficient for a tool with 6 optional parameters.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and pagination, followed by filter options. No redundant or vague language. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers main functionality but omits details about default archive state inclusion, cursor format, sorting behavior, and response structure. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context for a list tool with 6 optional parameters.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping filters (status, phase, archive state) and highlighting cursor-based pagination, which summarizes the schema context. It does not repeat schema details but provides a cohesive overview.

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 the action (list projects), the resource (projects), and key features (cursor-based pagination, filtering by status, phase, and archive state). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like projects_get or projects_activities_list by focusing on the main listing with filtering.

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 implies usage for listing projects with filters and pagination but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., projects_get for single project, projects_activities_list for activities within a project). Context is implied but not explicit.

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