list_projects

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

The description explains the behavior of the 'select' parameter (restricts rows, invalid name returns allowed set) and lists common fields. However, it omits pagination behavior (limit/offset), default ordering, and error handling, which are crucial for a list tool.

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 concise (2-3 sentences) and front-loads the main action. It could be slightly more structured, but there is no fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, search, and select, but lacks details on pagination, visibility criteria, output format, and other typical list tool behaviors. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 adds meaning for 'search' (searches name/identifier) and 'select' (field restriction with allowed set), but does not describe 'limit' or 'offset' parameters, leaving them unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 'List visible projects', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_project' by emphasizing listing versus retrieval, and from other list tools by focusing on projects.

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 implies usage for listing projects with optional search and field selection but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single project retrieval) or provide alternatives like 'get_project'. Guidance is minimal.

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