List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: result ordering by newest activity and the default of spanning all workspaces when no workspace is named. It does not mention pagination or result size limits, which is the only meaningful 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. Scope and ordering come first, then the routing rationale for why to pick this tool over jumping into list_items.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description conveys enough about the result set (project entities, ordered by newest activity, spanning workspaces) for an agent to use the output correctly. Missing only volume/pagination characteristics and what identifying field the returned project id is named.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by stating the default behavior when the parameter is omitted ('across every workspace unless one is named'), which the schema only weakly implies with 'Optional.'

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?

Names the resource (projects), the scope (everything you can reach, across every workspace), and the ordering (newest activity first) in a single front-loaded clause. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from list_items by noting that list_items needs a project id that this tool supplies.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition ('Start here when no project is bound') and names the concrete downstream dependency ('list_items needs a project id and this is where one comes from'). An agent knows both when to call it and why, without consulting siblings.

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