paperclip_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and gives no details on pagination behavior, return format, whether results are summaries or full objects, or any side effects. For a list operation, read-only is implied but not stated. This is a significant gap given the absence of annotations.

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?

A single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes value; no filler or redundancy.

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 two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves out expected behaviors like pagination usage and response structure. An agent would benefit from knowing if the response is a list of project summaries or full objects, and whether page/pageSize are required or optional. Given the simplicity, this is a moderate gap.

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% (page and pageSize both have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so it sits at the baseline 3. The schema already explains the pagination parameters adequately.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'List all projects' in the Paperclip organization. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project (single fetch) and create_project (write) by specifying the resource and scope. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 retrieving all projects but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_project or how to handle pagination. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only implicit, not explicit.

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