list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (cursor semantics, per_page range and default), order_by syntax (prefix '-' for descending), and the return envelope (results, total_count, next_cursor, next_page_results). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema, though it does not discuss permissions or error handling.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy. The pagination details are concise yet complete.

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 paginated list tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, all parameters, and return structure. It omits details like whether archived projects are included or workspace identification relying on context, but these are not critical for basic usage. The output schema may also cover some return details.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: cursor (prior response's next_cursor, omit for first page), per_page (1-100, default 100), and order_by (sort field, prefix '-' for descending). It also clarifies the return envelope, providing essential semantics for effective use.

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 opens with 'List projects in a workspace (paginated)', which clearly states the verb (List), resource (projects), scope (workspace), and a key characteristic (paginated). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like retrieve_project (single project) and create_project.

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 implies usage for enumerating projects in a workspace, but it does not explicitly contrast with retrieve_project or any other alternative. There is no 'when to use this vs. that' guidance, though the first line makes the primary use case obvious. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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