list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word "visible" hints that results are permission-scoped, which is a small but real disclosure. However, nothing is said about pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter, rate limits, auth requirements, or what a Project record contains.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally sound.

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?

No output schema and no annotations means the description must explain return shape and pagination, and it does neither. For a paginated list tool with an undocumented cursor parameter, the description is too thin to let an agent call it correctly.

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 0% for both parameters. The description implies organization scopes the listing, but adds nothing about its format (login vs ID) and says nothing at all about the cursor parameter or how paging works, leaving the semantics undocumented in both places.

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") and resource ("GitHub Projects v2") scoped to an organization, which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings get_project or list_project_items, though the plural "Projects" and org scope imply the difference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_project or list_project_items, no mention of prerequisites (auth scopes, org membership), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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