list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and mentions 'comprehensive project details', but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover auth requirements or rate limits. This is adequate for a list tool but lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. Every word contributes meaning; no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the basic purpose, filtering, and pagination. However, it does not describe the response structure or field details, which would be helpful for a list tool with 'comprehensive project details'.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the filter parameters into three categories (client, active status, updated date), which helps the agent understand the combined filtering intent beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('list of projects'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_clients or list_invoices. It also mentions optional filtering and pagination, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 by stating 'optional filtering' and 'paginated results', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_project for a single project). No when-not or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the decision partly implicit.

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