List projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that filtering is case-insensitive and that the operation is a list (non-destructive), which is useful, but it omits response shape, pagination/ordering, and query-match semantics such as exact vs substring.

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 sentence with no filler: it front-loads the action and resource, then states the one relevant filter behavior. 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?

For a single-optional-parameter list tool, the core calling contract is present, making the description minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks return-format details and query-match semantics, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does this by mapping the lone 'query' parameter to a case-insensitive title filter, which adds real meaning beyond the bare string type. It could still clarify whether the filter is exact, prefix, or substring.

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 ('lists') with a clear resource ('projects') and immediately states the optional filtering behavior. It is distinct from sibling list tools by resource name, so an agent can tell it apart from sp_tasks_list without opening schemas.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling tools or exclusions are mentioned. The only usage context is implied by the resource name 'projects', but there is no explicit decision support.

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