list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List projects' communicates a read-only enumeration behavior and 'in the organization' adds a scope constraint. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, authentication needs, or what exactly is returned beyond the implication of a project list.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. The verb, resource, and scope are all front-loaded, making it easy to parse and retain.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool, the description plus full schema coverage is mostly sufficient, but without annotations or an output schema, there are gaps around return shape, pagination behavior, and any implicit access restrictions. The description is minimal and leaves room for clarification.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already documents q and pageSize. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects in the organization'), and the resource name clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_quality_gates and get_measures. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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, and no exclusions or preference conditions. The agent must infer from the sibling names that other tools handle different resources, but the description itself offers no explicit usage context.

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