list_projects

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

The description adds the substring-matching behavior for 'text' and clarifies the limit operation, but annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, or other operational details beyond the basic listing behavior.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action and parameters. The backtick formatting helps distinguish parameters from prose.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core listing behavior but fails to explain the 'cursor' parameter (pagination) or that 'text' can be null to list all projects. This leaves an agent uncertain about full tool usage.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'text' filters by project name and 'limit' sets the maximum projects, but it omits 'cursor' entirely and doesn't note that 'text' is optional or that limit defaults to 25.

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 ('List'), resource ('projects'), and a filter criterion ('name contains text'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on tasks, attachments, and comments.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: call it when you need a filtered list of projects. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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