List projects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds that projects are listed with budget info and can be filtered, but does not discuss pagination, default sort order, or other behavioral details. It neither contradicts annotations nor provides substantial extra transparency.

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 sentence, front-loads the main action, and includes no redundant information. It is highly concise.

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 list tool with two documented parameters and a readOnlyHint, the description adequately conveys the purpose and basic filtering options. Missing pagination or return-structure details are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (client_id and active_only with defaults). The description mirrors the filtering capability but does not add new syntax or format details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), and specifies the information returned ('client, code, and budget info'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_tasks or list_time_entries.

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 context for filtering by client_id and including archived projects, which are parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives such as list_project_tasks or list_clients, nor does it state any exclusions. So guidance is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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