list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List all projects' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization needs, result scope (user's projects vs all), or any side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Every sentence provides value: the purpose and a brief definition of projects.

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 (list with optional pagination) and has no output schema. The description adequately explains the core function but lacks details on return format, sorting, or filtering, which could help the agent anticipate results.

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 100% (page and size are described). The description adds 'optional pagination' which echoes the schema but does not provide additional meaning. Baseline 3.

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 it lists all projects with optional pagination, and defines projects as grouping related flows and resources. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project (single) and create_project.

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 mentions optional pagination but does not explicitly exclude cases (e.g., when to use get_project instead). However, the context implies it is for listing all projects, and no other project listing sibling exists, so guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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