List projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists projects accessible by the API key, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the implicit access scope.

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, focused sentence with no superfluous text. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and output without waste.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool lists and the fields returned. Sibling tools are all note-related, so there is no confusion about tool selection.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (id, slug, name), which are not defined in the input schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'projects', and explicitly states the scope ('API key can access') and the fields returned ('id, slug, name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which are note-related.

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 accessible projects, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool, nor any alternatives. Context from sibling tools suggests it is the only project-listing tool.

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