bb_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses authentication scope ('visible to the authenticated user'), result content (project key, name, description, visibility, lock state), and pagination behavior. It does not mention ordering, rate limits, or API-side effects, but as a read-only list operation the disclosed traits are reasonably sufficient.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the action and scope, the returned fields, and pagination. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 simple list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, access scope, returned fields, and pagination. The schema handles parameter details. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 input schema already documents limit, start, and filter thoroughly, including filter examples. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List Bitbucket Server projects visible to the authenticated user.' It also enumerates the returned fields (key, name, description, visibility, lock state), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from repository-focused siblings.

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?

It clearly states this is for listing projects visible to the authenticated user, which provides context for when the tool applies. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like bb_list_repositories or bb_search_repositories, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the resource and scope are clear.

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