atlas-list-projects

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

The annotations already indicate 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'destructiveHint: false', establishing a safe read operation. The description does not contradict these, but it adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide (such as rate limits or idempotency concerns).

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, front-loaded sentence—extremely concise. While it avoids unnecessary words, it omits useful output information that could be included without becoming verbose.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values (e.g., fields of a project). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what data the tool provides. For a listing tool, this is a significant gap.

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% (the single 'orgId' parameter is well-described with pattern, length constraints, and functional meaning). The description does not repeat or supplement parameter details, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'MongoDB Atlas projects', making the main action and scope obvious. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'atlas-list-orgs' or 'atlas-list-clusters', which a 5 would require.

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. It lacks information about prerequisites, typical use cases, or indications that might help an agent decide between 'atlas-list-projects' and other list tools.

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