list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses authentication (SIWX wallet auth), error behavior for org_id (403 for non-member/guessed, 400 for non-UUID), pagination mechanics, and the fields returned. It effectively sets expectations for read-only, list behavior.

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 sentence that is dense but readable. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists details. It could be improved with more structure (e.g., bullet points), but it is not overly long.

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?

The description covers the main use cases, parameters, and return fields. No output schema is provided, but the description lists the fields returned. It lacks details on empty results or error handling beyond auth, but is adequate for a list tool.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the membership-scoped default, cross-wallet inventory, and authorization nuances for org_id. It provides context that the schema alone does not.

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 that the tool lists projects from a domain-aware inventory, specifying the endpoint (GET /projects/v1) and default behavior (membership-scoped). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like accept_project_transfer or cancel_project_transfer by focusing on listing.

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 explicit usage context: membership-scoped by default, filter by org_id, cross-wallet with all:true, and pagination with limit/cursor. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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