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 fully covered by structured data. The description's one genuine addition is the PAT-based visibility scoping, which explains result completeness. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume, though the presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return structure.

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?

Nothing is wasted, but the brevity crosses into under-specification: a four-word fragment is not a complete sentence and carries no verb. It is front-loaded in the sense that there is only one clause.

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 simple (no parameters, output schema present, annotations covering safety), so the bar is relatively low. The description covers the key scoping fact but leaves the agent without a clear statement of what the call does or when to make it, which is thin even for a trivial enumerator.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The visibility clause is the only 'parameter-like' constraint and it is stated.

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?

"Projects the PAT can see" identifies the resource and adds a scope qualifier (visibility is limited to what the personal access token can access), which is more than the name alone conveys. However, it is a sentence fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer that the operation is a listing; it also does not differentiate against any sibling, several of which (list_teams, list_iterations, list_repositories) are also unscoped 'list' tools.

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 call this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or auth expectations, and no exclusions. The visibility clause implicitly explains why results may be incomplete, but the agent gets no cue about when a project listing is the right first step before other calls.

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