List Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the semantic clarification that these are cost/profit centers, which helps interpret results but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as ordering or scope.

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?

A single short phrase with no filler, and the key domain clarification is right there rather than buried. It is slightly telegraphic, reading more like a label than a definition.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool the description is serviceable, but with no output schema present it never indicates what a project record contains (id, name, code) or whether the full list is returned. It is adequate rather than complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is no parameter semantics to convey. The parenthetical gloss on 'projektid' is a modest extra that helps the agent understand the returned entity type.

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 resource ('cost/profit centers') and clarifies the domain term via the Estonian 'projektid', which tells an agent what list_projects actually returns. It is clear, but it uses the weaker verb 'Get' rather than 'List' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named inventory tools like list_accounts or list_account_dimensions.

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 call this tool, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative (e.g. list_account_dimensions), despite a very large sibling set. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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