taiga_projects_list

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List projects' and mentions filters, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, authentication requirements, or whether it returns all projects or only those accessible to the user. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 terse sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the main action. There is no fluff, though the vague 'etc.' slightly reduces clarity without adding information.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 6 optional parameters, this description is too thin. It does not explain the output format, all filter semantics, or any caveats, leaving the agent with significant gaps when deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters. It names only 'member' and 'is_featured' and then says 'etc.', leaving order_by, is_kanban_activated, is_backlog_activated, and is_looking_for_people unexplained. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 ('List') with the resource ('projects') and mentions optional filters, which clearly conveys the core action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling project tools like taiga_projects_get_by_slug or taiga_projects_stats, but the 'List' action strongly implies a collection-retrieval operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as taiga_projects_get, taiga_projects_create, or taiga_projects_stats. The phrase 'Optionally filter...' describes capability, not context, and no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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