list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies read-only, but nothing is said about default filtering to active projects, result truncation at the limit, or the failure mode of ambiguous folder names — all behaviors an agent needs to interpret the response correctly.

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?

A single sentence with both clauses doing work: the first establishes the operation and filters, the second establishes the discovery/ID purpose. Front-loaded and zero waste.

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 five-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It omits that results default to active-only and how many come back by default, which materially affects how an agent interprets an empty or partial list.

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%, including defaults and the folderName ambiguity/failure behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that folder and status filtering exist, adding no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List projects') and adds the distinguishing scope ('optional folder and status filtering'), plus the purpose of ID discovery. It is clearly separable from get_project_by_id and get_projects_for_review, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 targeted way to discover projects and their IDs' implies the use case (discovery/lookup) but gives no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives. An agent must infer that get_project_by_id is for a single known project and get_projects_for_review for review workflows.

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