List Projects

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful context about the response structure ({ items, pagination }), pagination fields, and default page_size (30). This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover potential edge cases like empty results or rate limits.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently communicates the action, filtering option, and response format without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the response envelope and pagination details. The parameter details are fully covered by the schema, and the tool's simplicity (list with optional filters) means the description is sufficient for an agent to understand usage and output.

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 all parameters described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond mentioning that filtering is possible; the default page_size is repeated from the schema. No meaningful semantic addition is provided.

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 the tool lists projects, with optional filtering via query parameters. The verb 'list' and resource 'projects' are specific, and the distinction from sibling tools like project_get is evident from the name and action.

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 listing projects (optionally filtered) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_get for a single project. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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