listProjects

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return payload shape (key, name, qualifier) and the practical contract that the key should be reused as `projectKey` in other tools. It does not contradict annotations.

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 compact sentences carry all essential information: what the tool lists, how filtering works, what is returned, and how to use the result. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of schema details.

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 read-only listing tool with three optional parameters, full schema documentation, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It adds the one crucial cross-tool detail—using the returned key as `projectKey`—that structured fields alone would not convey.

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 limit, query, and offset are already well documented structurally. The description reinforces the `query` parameter as name-based filtering, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline.

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 states a specific action and resource: "List projects, optionally filtered by name." This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other resources (e.g., listIssues, listComponents), so an agent can identify the right tool without opening schemas.

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 gives clear usage context: listing projects with optional name filtering, and it explains how the result should be consumed downstream by using the returned key as `projectKey`. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for this straightforward list operation.

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