list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'List GitHub projects' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 maximally concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use its parameters, when to choose it over alternatives, or any behavioral characteristics. For a listing tool in a complex GitHub project management context, this leaves too many gaps.

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 description provides zero information about the tool's 2 parameters (status and limit), despite 0% schema description coverage. The schema shows 'status' is required and 'limit' is optional, but the description doesn't explain what values 'status' accepts, what it filters by, what 'limit' controls, or their expected formats. With no parameter guidance in either schema or description, this is inadequate.

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 'List GitHub projects' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('GitHub projects'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a read operation rather than a creation or modification tool. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of projects are listed or how they differ from other list tools like 'list_project_items' or 'list_project_views'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_project', 'list_project_items', and 'list_project_views', there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus those other options. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison context is provided.

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