acc_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it is the newest API (implying version/recommendation), supports filters and pagination (behavioral detail), and provides a template-discovery use case. No contradictions with annotations, and it enriches beyond the annotation alone.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose with a specific verb and resource, and the second adds a targeted use case. No wasted words, all sentences earn their place.

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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers the main listing use case, pagination/filter existence, and the template discovery workflow. The schema handles parameter details and output, so no major gaps remain.

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 71%, with limit/offset lacking descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantics for classification (use template to discover project templates) and mentions filters generally, which helps interpret the status/platform/name_contains filters. However, pagination params are not elaborated beyond schema defaults, so it doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 tool lists projects of an ACC account (hub) and specifies it uses the newest API with filters and pagination. It distinguishes from siblings like acc_get_project (single project) and acc_list_hubs (hubs) by explicitly scoping to projects, and adds a distinct use case for discovering templates.

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 clear usage context: list projects with filtering/pagination, and specifically mentions using classification='template' to discover project templates for acc_create_project. It implies when to use this tool over get/create operations but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it's not a full when/when-not guide.

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