project_get_all_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only 'with specified paging parameters' and the raw endpoint path, which says nothing about role-based filtering (excludeViewer, excludeSupervisor), permission effects, or result ordering.

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?

Three lines say the same thing twice ('Get all projects' then 'Get all projects with specified paging parameters') and then append a raw HTTP path. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the name, and the repetition is padding rather than structure.

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 nine-parameter listing endpoint with no output schema, the description should sketch the shape of the response, default page size implications, and the meaning of the role filters. The rich parameter schema covers inputs, but the description leaves everything about results and filter interaction to inference.

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 and the schema already documents every one of the nine parameters in detail. The description only gestures at 'paging parameters' and adds no syntax, defaults, or interplay between filters.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get all projects'), and 'all' implicitly contrasts with the single-project siblings such as project_get_project. It never names those alternatives explicitly, but an agent can infer the collection-vs-single split from the name and text.

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 statement of when to use this instead of project_get_project, project_get_projects_by_id_resource_metadata, or iaas_get_projects, all of which sit in the sibling list. The only usage hint is the implied paging context, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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