search_my_sonarqube_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior, return contents (keys, names, pagination info), and includes an example. Minor gaps like page size or access scope exist, but the behavior is adequately transparent for a simple read-only list tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence serves a function: what it does, when to use, what it returns, and an example. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, return info, and an example. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the page parameter described as 'Page number to retrieve (1-indexed)'. The description adds an example but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it is a 'Paginated project finder' for retrieving project keys and names, with a specific use case ('use when you need keys/names before running other SonarCloud tools'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that consume the keys, like search_sonar_issues_in_projects and search_hotspots.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('use when you need keys/names') and references downstream tools that require the output. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or offer an alternative for listing projects, so it lacks full exclusion criteria.

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