list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It notes that only 'visible' projects are returned, implying permission-based filtering, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, whether archived projects are included, or the response structure, leaving behavioral gaps for a list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without redundancy. Every word 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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema, and the description clearly states the tool's purpose. It does not describe the return format, but given the low complexity and the broad scope of 'visible projects', this is an adequate level of completeness for an AI agent to select the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%) and there is no param semantic burden. The baseline for no-param tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'all visible OpenProject projects'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_project (which fetches a single project) and list_work_packages (which lists a different resource type).

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 phrase 'all visible OpenProject projects' clearly conveys the context: use this tool to enumerate all projects the user can see. There is no explicit statement about when not to use it or alternatives, but the scope is clear enough for typical list scenarios.

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