list_projects

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: authentication via SIWX wallet, error responses for org_id (403/400), pagination with limit/cursor, and the all parameter for cross-wallet inventory. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention rate limits, but given no annotations, this is sufficient.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and provides necessary details. It is relatively concise, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) without losing information. Every sentence contributes value.

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 no output schema, the description lists returned fields (name, site_url, etc.), explains auth, error cases, and pagination. It covers the main usage scenarios and constraints, making it fairly complete for a listing tool with moderate complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it mostly repeats the same information (e.g., org_id authorize-before-reveal, all parameter). No significant extra context is provided.

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 'List projects' and specifies the scope (membership-scoped) and the endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like project_get by focusing on listing multiple projects, with explicit details on returned fields.

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 when to use this tool for listing projects, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives such as project_get for single project retrieval. It gives context on filtering and pagination but lacks explicit exclusions.

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