get_projects

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does very little: it implies a read-only listing scoped to the workspace but says nothing about pagination behavior, whether archived projects are excluded by default, or result ordering. For a 5-parameter listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no waste and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise in a helpful way.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully inform correct invocation. It omits default behavior for the archived filter and any note on pagination semantics, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone.

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 all five parameters (name, page, archived, clientId, pageSize) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning, such as default filtering behavior for archived.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (projects) scoped to the workspace, so the core action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling listing tools such as get_tasks, get_clients, or get_workspaces, which follow the same pattern.

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 call this tool versus its many sibling list tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. Usage is only implied by the name and description.

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