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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by name or permission, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior beyond what the schema already indicates. The description is not misleading, but it leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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, concise sentence: 'List projects visible to the authenticated user. Can filter by name or permission.' It is front-loaded with the primary action and scope, with no unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes useful information, making it an example of efficient communication.

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 tool's relative simplicity (list operation with four optional parameters) and the thorough parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose, user scope, and filtering options. While it does not explicitly mention pagination defaults or return format, the schema handles these details, and the description avoids redundancy. This is a well-rounded tool definition for a straightforward list operation.

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 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already explains the meaning of name, limit, start, and permission. The description's mention of filtering by name or permission adds marginal value but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'List projects visible to the authenticated user.' This uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), and it also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_repositories by focusing on projects rather than repositories. The additional filtering note adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 context for when to use this tool: when you need to list projects visible to the authenticated user. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling-tool context (e.g., list_repositories for repositories) makes the intended use case apparent. The phrase 'Can filter by name or permission' gives additional guidance on filtering capabilities, which is helpful for choosing appropriate parameters.

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