ado_projects_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds value beyond them: it discloses pagination behavior (one page at a time, token for next page) and a security caveat that remote content is untrusted. It doesn't state default/max page size or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then pagination mechanics, then the safety note. No filler.

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?

Pagination and untrusted-data handling are covered, which is the hardest part for an agent. But with a nested required object and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the agent guessing which target fields to populate for a plain project listing.

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 description coverage is 0% and the schema is a nested 'target' object with six undocumented sub-fields (profile, project, repoPath, repository, organization). The description says nothing about which target field is needed (e.g., organization), what 'top' controls beyond the schema's silent default of 50/max 100, or the token's origin. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'List one page of projects in an organization'. Distinguishable from other list siblings (repositories, pull requests, pipelines) by resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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 pagination instruction ('Pass returned continuationToken for the next page') implies usage, but there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how this relates to ado_context or ado_config (which may also resolve organization state), and no stated prerequisites for the 'target' object.

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