get-project-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that it returns only active projects (filtering behavior), excludes archived projects, returns compact response with essential fields, is paginated, and has default values. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers key behavioral traits adequately for a read operation.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, note, important warning, usage context, examples, return format). Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Get list' and 'retrieves' in first two sentences), but overall it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with critical information.

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 read-only list tool with 2 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral constraints (active-only, compact response), pagination, and distinguishes from alternatives. No significant gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing usage examples with parameters, but doesn't explain semantics or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get list', 'retrieves') and resource ('active projects that you belong to'), specifying the scope (active projects where user is a member, excluding archived). It distinguishes from sibling 'get-project' by noting this is for listing vs. getting details.

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 states when to use ('for browsing your active projects when no specific project URL or ID is provided') and when not to use (when user provides a specific Dooray URL, use 'get-project' instead). It names the alternative tool and provides clear context for usage decisions.

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