projects_list

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the HTTP method and response structure, but it doesn't disclose potential behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. It is a read-only operation, but that is not explicitly stated or backed by annotations.

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 concise: two sentences, no extraneous fluff. It provides the essential information about the HTTP method and response format in a clear, front-loaded manner.

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?

With no parameters, a simple response, and a clear description, the tool is adequately complete for its simplicity. It could mention if there is pagination or limits, but for a basic list operation with minimal complexity, this is sufficient.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema is minimal. The description correctly states that the response is an array of objects, adding some value about the return format. Given there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter semantics to elaborate on.

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 that it lists all projects in the account, with the specific HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes itself from other project operations like create, get, delete, and update, but it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, which might be why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to retrieve all projects. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer alternatives like projects_get for a specific project. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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