List Shortcut 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 disclosing behavior. It only says 'List projects' without explicitly stating that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor does it mention what the return value looks like. The presence of a dry_run parameter further complicates expectations, as the description does not explain its effect. This leaves the agent guessing about side effects or simulation behavior.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though it is slightly under-specified. It earns its place but could have included more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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 but lacks essential context. There is no output schema, no annotations, and the one parameter (dry_run) is unexplained. The description does not clarify return format or behavior beyond the basic listing action. Given the missing details, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema contains one parameter (dry_run) with no description, and the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it provides zero information about dry_run's meaning or usage. The parameter name alone might hint at a dry-run mode, but this is insufficient, especially for a list operation.

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 in your Shortcut workspace' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_members or list_labels. It states exactly what the tool does 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools such as get_project for retrieving a single project. Usage is only implied by the tool name and title, not explicitly explained.

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