list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: automatic SIWX wallet auth, default membership scope, authorize-before-reveal for org_id, mutual exclusivity of parameters, and pagination. This is thorough for a read-only list tool.

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 dense paragraph with no superfluous words. Front-loads the endpoint and default behavior, then efficiently covers all parameters and edge cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates returned fields and explains pagination. Covers authentication, scoping, error codes, and parameter interactions. Complete for a list tool of this 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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the 100% schema description: mutual exclusivity of org_id and all, default page size, auth behavior, and error handling context. Every parameter's role is enriched.

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 the tool lists projects via a specific API endpoint, details the default membership-scoped behavior, and lists returned fields. It differentiates from sibling tools implicitly by focusing on project inventory with unique scoping options.

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?

Provides explicit usage for parameters like org_id, all, limit, and cursor, including error conditions. Lacks direct comparison to sibling list tools but offers sufficient context for when to use each parameter.

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