list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention pagination defaults, ordering behavior, filtering semantics, or the fact that results may be scoped by profile. The schema reveals parameters like order_by defaulting to period_start and order_desc defaulting to true, but the description itself discloses nothing about behavior.

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 concise sentence in Japanese. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. It's minimal but entirely appropriate — the schema handles the parameter 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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite sparse. It doesn't mention defaults like the 50-item limit, default ordering, or pagination for large result sets. The schema compensates for parameter details, but the overall behavior of the list operation (pagination, ordering defaults, profile scoping implications) is left implicit. A bit more context would help.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions. The description adds nothing extra, but per the rubric, high schema coverage earns a baseline of 3. The profile_id description in the schema is notably detailed about account-scoped vs profile-scoped key behavior, which is genuinely helpful. The nested filter object is documented as 'フィルタ条件 (カラム名: 値)'. This justifies a 4.

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 'プロジェクト一覧を取得' (retrieve project list) clearly states the action and resource. However, it's quite terse and doesn't distinguish from list_personas, list_profiles, list_goals, etc. — though the resource name 'projects' is clear enough given the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the schema's profile_id parameter description does note that profile_id is required for account-scoped API keys and optional for profile-scoped keys, which adds useful context. There's no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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