sp_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' and 'optionally filtered by title' convey that the operation is read-only and that the query restricts results, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination, errors, or access requirements. Basic behavior is clear, but fuller transparency is absent.

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 sentence with no filler: it front-loads the action and resource and states the optional filter in a compact clause. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given low complexity — one optional parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema — the description is minimally adequate for selecting and invoking the tool. However, the lack of annotations and output schema leaves unspecified details about response shape and operational behavior. The description could be more complete without adding much length.

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?

The sole parameter, query, is fully described in the schema as a case-insensitive substring match on title, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds only the phrase 'filtered by title,' which does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 a specific resource ('Super Productivity projects'), and adds the optional title filter. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like sp_list_tasks and sp_list_tags by naming the resource directly. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling context that this is the right tool for project listing. Explicit routing such as 'use this for projects, not tasks/tags' is missing.

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