get_project_list

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

No annotations are available, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the obvious return value and fails to mention that 'all' only applies to administrators, the effect of 'archived', whether pagination exists, or any permissions/side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of substantive detail.

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 with two optional booleans and the schema covers parameter semantics, yet the description lacks usage context, return format details, and behavioral nuances. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps, so a 3 reflects the balance.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (all, archived), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully explains parameter meaning.

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 is a direct restatement of the tool name: 'get_project_list' -> 'Returns list of projects'. It adds no additional scope, filtering behavior, or distinction from sibling tools like get_project. This is a tautology, scoring 2.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project, get_issues, or other list tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool, leaving agents without decision support.

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