sonarqube_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added context is permission scoping ('the token can see'), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about pagination, default result size, or ordering. Modest value-add against already-rich 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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the visibility scope comes immediately after the verb. Nothing to trim.

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 two-optional-param read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition is sufficient to call it correctly. It could note whether results are paginated, but no output schema is needed and nothing critical is missing.

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% with both parameters documented (limit with default/max, query as name-or-key fragment), so the schema carries the burden. The description's 'search' wording loosely signals the query param but adds no format or matching semantics 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?

States a specific verb pair ('List or search') and resource ('projects') plus the visibility scope ('the token can see'). The sibling tools are all different resources (issues, measures, branches), so no sibling differentiation is needed, though it never distinguishes list-vs-search mode activation.

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 phrase 'List or search' implies two usage modes but gives no condition for choosing between them and no guidance on when to reach for this versus the issue/measures siblings when drilling into a project. Usage is only implied.

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