list_projects

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses token-scope filtering, per-page bounding, cursor pagination, and the shape of each entry (services with state/endpoint, plus advertised addresses). It doesn't cover ordering or behavior at the page cap, but for a read-only list the disclosure is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope in the first clause, then return shape and the alternative in two short follow-ons. No filler; the slight repetition of the per-page bound is negligible.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly explains what each entry carries and how paging works, and the token-scope caveat prevents misinterpretation of sparse results. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering and what an exhausted cursor looks like.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already well documented there (default 50, clamped to 200; opaque cursor). The description only restates 'bounded to `limit` per page' and 'cursor-paginated,' adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the projects this token can see') and adds a real scope constraint — a scoped token sees only the projects its scope names. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling detail tool by naming `get_project` for 'the full picture of one.'

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to `get_project` when it needs a single project's full detail, and states the listing is cursor-paginated. It gives clear context but no exclusions (e.g., when to prefer `list_services` or how to filter), so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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