Список проектов

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

Annotation Contradiction: The description says the tool returns a list (read-only behavior), but annotations set readOnlyHint to false, implying the tool is not read-only and may have side effects. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent. The description provides no additional behavioral context beyond the contradictory annotation.

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 two concise sentences, with the main action and output details front-loaded. The second sentence provides actionable usage guidance. No redundant information or filler words; every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it returns, the fields included, and when to use it (to obtain project_id). It doesn't explain pagination or advanced filtering, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is not a significant gap. However, the contradiction with annotations reduces the overall completeness slightly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no schema to compensate for. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (id, имя, описание, флаг по умолчанию), which is useful for an agent expecting to extract project_id. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4 and the description fulfills the informational need without missing details.

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 ('Возвращает' - returns) and resource ('список всех проектов аккаунта' - list of all account projects), and specifies the returned fields (id, имя, описание, флаг по умолчанию). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list specific project resources (e.g., list_project_servers, list_project_balancers).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Используй перед работой с ресурсами проекта, чтобы получить project_id.' This gives a clear use case and prerequisite for obtaining a project_id. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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