nexus_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions listing and filtering, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, whether results are paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. The description provides basic functionality but lacks critical operational context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and key capabilities. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and follows with the filtering options.

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 the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't address critical contextual information like what the output looks like, whether this is a safe read operation, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured behavioral metadata, the description should provide more operational 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optional filtering by status or assignment,' which aligns with the schema parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 all projects') and resource ('in the organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other list tools (like nexus_list_bugs or nexus_list_concepts) by specifying it lists projects, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might also list projects with different scopes or filters.

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 optional filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexus_get_project (for single project details) or nexus_list_bugs (for different resource types). It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where filtering is appropriate or when other tools might be better suited.

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