taskhub_projects_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List projects' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is good, but there is no disclosure about default scope (all projects vs. only accessible), pagination, or response format. The description is accurate but minimal, earning a mid score.

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 two short sentences with the main verb-resource pair front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundancy. Every word adds value, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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 optional filters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and filter options, but it leaves ambiguity about the default project scope (all vs. accessible) and what the response looks like. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would help.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds a slight semantic hint by saying 'filter by organization or personal projects,' but this largely restates the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 action and resource: 'List projects.' It also mentions optional filters, making the tool's scope unambiguous. It is distinct from taskhub_orgs_list (lists organizations) and taskhub_project_info (single project), so an agent can easily differentiate it.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like taskhub_search or taskhub_tasks_list. It does not specify exclusions, prerequisites, or mention sibling tools. The implied usage is 'when you need a list of projects,' but there is no explicit routing.

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