webforge_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like, or if there are rate limits. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a list tool and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence ('List website projects with optional filtering') contributes essential 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'website projects' are in this context, what fields are returned, or how the filtering works in practice. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, more context is needed for the agent to use it effectively.

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?

The description mentions 'optional filtering' which aligns with the parameters, but adds no specific meaning beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context about filtering logic.

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 ('List') and resource ('website projects'), and mentions optional filtering. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'webforge_get_project' or 'webforge_list_palettes' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention when to use 'webforge_list_projects' instead of 'webforge_get_project' for retrieving a single project, or how it relates to other list tools like 'webforge_list_palettes'. There's only a vague implication of usage through 'optional filtering'.

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