get-project-list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: archived projects are excluded, and the response is a compact field set rather than full project detail. Only minor gaps remain, such as default ordering or what happens past the last page.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope, then routing rule, then examples — a sensible order. It is somewhat longer than strictly needed for two optional params, with bold markers and a redundant return-shape sentence, but no sentence is pure filler.

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 two-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, response shape, pagination examples, and sibling disambiguation. An agent has everything needed to choose and call it 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented with defaults and bounds. The examples add real meaning the schema does not: page 1 returning 'second page' confirms zero-based paging, and the empty-object example shows both params are optional.

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 and resource ('Get list of active projects') and immediately scopes it to projects the caller belongs to. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get-project, which is named as the detail-oriented counterpart.

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?

Explicitly routes between two sibling tools: use get-project when a Dooray URL or PROJECT_ID is present, use this tool for browsing when no specific project is identified. The exclusion rule is stated with a concrete URL example, leaving little to inference.

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