list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only 'List projects' and reveals nothing about read-only nature, pagination, return format, or filtering behavior. This is a complete lack of transparency.

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 two words, which is technically concise, but it is severely under-specified. It is not effective conciseness but rather an absence of content, similar to the 'process' example. Every sentence should earn its place; here the only sentence is an obvious restatement.

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 is incomplete even for a low-complexity tool. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter schema, the description should at least state basic listing behavior, but it provides no contextual information about how projects are returned or filtered.

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 input schema has one parameter, organization_id, with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter or explain its purpose or effect. No effort is made to compensate for the schema's lack of semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'projects', unambiguously stating the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project and other list tools by resource type, making the purpose clear despite being terse.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, how it relates to alternatives, or the optional organization_id parameter that could filter results. It offers no context for agent decision-making.

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