Base Wework List Projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions permission-based visibility, but fails to disclose pagination (page, items_per_page), the effect of include_private, or any other behavioral traits. No side effects are mentioned, but for a read operation this is minimal.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the core functionality. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the task.

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 four parameters and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, private-project filtering, or token usage. Even though an output schema exists, the input parameters are entirely unexplained, so the tool cannot be invoked correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters (page, access_token, items_per_page, include_private). The description provides no explanation of these parameters, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of how to use them. This is a critical gap.

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 tool's purpose: listing all projects and teams visible to the account. It distinguishes itself from sibling detail/summary tools (e.g., base_wework_get_project_detail, base_wework_get_project_summary) by explicitly covering the full list scope, making the verb and resource specific.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied that this is the list-all option, there is no mention of exclusions (e.g., 'use get_project_detail for a single project') or context like pagination behavior. The description does not help the agent choose between this and the many sibling tools.

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