taiga_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds the qualifier 'accessible', which is useful, but omits any mention of pagination behavior or return format beyond what is implied by the parameters. This is adequate for a simple list operation but not deeply transparent.

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 one concise sentence that delivers the essential purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and effective.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema covers parameters, and no output schema exists. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the core operation, though it could mention that the response is a paginated list. Given the low complexity, it is adequately 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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (page and page_size with defaults and bounds), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed since the schema fully documents them.

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 clearly states the tool lists all accessible Taiga projects. It uses the specific verb 'list' and resource 'projects', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_get_project (single project) and taiga_create_project.

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 clear context that this tool is for retrieving a list of projects. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the purpose is evident in the context of sibling tools, making it obvious when to use this instead of get/create variants.

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