atlas-list-projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or response structure. It essentially restates the tool name without enriching transparency.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundant words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with a rich schema and output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any mention of pagination defaults or org filtering behavior, leaving some contextual gaps that the schema only partially fills. Overall, it is minimally sufficient for a simple list tool.

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%, meaning all parameters (limit, orgId, pageNum) have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List MongoDB Atlas projects' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('MongoDB Atlas projects'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like atlas-list-orgs or atlas-list-clusters, though the resource type itself provides differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that orgId can filter projects or that results are paginated. There is no 'use this when' or mention of prerequisites, so the agent receives no direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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