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. It only states that the tool lists projects, but does not specify whether results are paginated, sorted, filtered, or what permissions are required. Critical behavioral traits about return format or data limits are absent.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it omits useful details that could be added without sacrificing conciseness, such as noting that it returns project names or IDs.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It adequately states the core functionality but lacks detail on return format, error behavior, or how the list is ordered or filtered. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves 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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to clarify them. The description adds value by specifying that the list includes only 'accessible to the user,' which is meaningful context beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate here.

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 clearly states it lists projects accessible to the user, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project_detail and list_sprints by resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., list_requirements) beyond resource type.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_detail or list_requirements. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context-dependent usage, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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