list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the returned fields are disclosed, but key behavior such as default filtering of closed/archived projects, ordering, pagination, and permission requirements is not described.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the usage hint.

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 two-parameter list tool with rich schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the returned fields and the primary use case. It could mention the closed/archived filtering defaults, but the schema covers those 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 100%, so both optional parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List projects') and names the returned fields ('id, name, phase and status'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_project or search_items.

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 sentence 'Use it to find a projectId' gives a clear intended use case. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context for when to call it is explicit.

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