list_projects

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

Annotations already convey read-only, nondestructive, idempotent, and open-world nature. The description adds 'optional pagination' which is already clear from parameters, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., default pagination, rate limits, or response size constraints).

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key feature without any redundant or extraneous text.

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 rich annotations and complete parameter schema, the description is adequate for a simple listing tool. However, it could be improved by briefly mentioning typical return fields (e.g., project IDs, names) since no output schema is provided.

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% with clear descriptions for limit and offset. The description's mention of 'optional pagination' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 action ('Get all projects') and identifies the key feature ('optional pagination'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_project (single project) and create_project.

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 use for listing all projects but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for a specific project, use get_project) or scenarios where alternatives are better. The context of sibling tools partially compensates but is not explicitly mentioned.

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