gatekeeper_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond those annotations by specifying the exact scope ('all Gatekeeper client projects') and the fields returned, which helps the agent anticipate the output.

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. The core action and resource are front-loaded, the field list is compact, and the intended use case is stated in a single clause.

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 parameterless, read-only, list-style tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, the exact returned fields, and the business purpose. No output schema exists, but the field enumeration compensates. The annotations cover safety and world context, so no critical information is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input semantics, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all Gatekeeper client projects', and enumerates the returned fields (slug, name, domain, status, due date, amount due). This clearly distinguishes it from more specific siblings like gatekeeper_get_project and gatekeeper_list_overdue.

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?

It provides a concrete intended use case: 'Use for billing/access overview across hosted clients.' This gives the agent clear context for when to select it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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