list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: results are filtered to open projects by default, which an agent would not know from the schema alone. It does not mention any pagination or result-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the returned-field summary front-loaded and the filtering caveat placed last where it is actionable. Nothing here is wasted or redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly covers the default filtering behavior for a simple two-parameter read tool. The only mild gap is the team scoping parameter, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 documents both parameters (team key, include_closed flag), making 3 the baseline. The description restates include_closed's semantics ('Open projects only unless include_closed') but says nothing about the team parameter's scoping behavior, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (projects) and enumerates the returned fields (status, lead, teams, dates, progress), which combined with the tool name 'list_projects' makes the operation unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling list_* tools (list_teams, list_issues, list_cycles), though it never states the verb explicitly and reads as a field listing rather than an action.

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 clause 'Open projects only unless include_closed' tells the agent when the default behavior applies and how to widen it, which is real usage guidance. However, no alternatives are named and there is no statement about when to prefer this tool over, say, list_issues or list_cycles when scoping a query.

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