list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'visible to the token,' which hints at auth scope, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default page/per_page, or the meaning of filters like owned/membership. The agent has no sense of what side effects or limits exist.

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 a single concise sentence, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse, lacking any information about parameters or behavior, so it is not appropriately informative for the agent.

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?

Given 5 parameters with zero documentation, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain parameter semantics, pagination, or filtering, leaving the agent without enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the parameter definitions (page, owned, search, per_page, membership) are completely undocumented. The description adds no meaning to any of these parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), and adds a scoping detail ('visible to the token'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that involve other resources (e.g., list_merge_requests) or single-item retrieval (get_project), though it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project or other list tools. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or filtering use cases. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and minimal description.

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