getProjects

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a read-only operation, so the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose default behaviors (e.g., pagination limits, response format, or how query parameters affect results). The description is too sparse to provide transparency beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise (two words), but it is underspecified rather than efficiently composed. It lacks valuable information that would justify its brevity, making it more of a placeholder than a well-crafted concise description. The front-loading of the core verb is good, but the absence of any supporting details undermines its effectiveness.

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?

Given the complexity of the schema (nested objects, many query parameters, and no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not convey how to use the tool for filtering, what the format parameter does, or what the response looks like. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for any parameters. The description itself says nothing about the meaning or usage of pathParams or queryParams. The agent is left completely uninformed about parameter semantics, which is a critical failure given the number of optional filters.

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 'List projects' specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'projects', making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes from getProject (singular retrieval) but does not explicitly mention scope like filtering or pagination. It is sufficiently clear for an agent to know it retrieves multiple projects.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it is for listing all projects or filtering, nor does it reference siblings like getProject for single-item retrieval. The guidance is entirely implicit in the name and description, which is insufficient for complex decision-making.

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