List projects

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the concrete output shape (id, name, slug, last-updated time), which is useful and not present in annotations. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but that is a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the operation and immediately gives the most important usage exception. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage, this description is sufficient: it defines the scope, the output fields, and the default-org behavior. Lack of an explicit note about pagination or limits does not make it incomplete for selecting and invoking correctly.

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 single org parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its default resolution and how to discover options via list_orgs. The description restates the default-org behavior but adds no new semantic detail.

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?

States a specific action ('List projects') and a bounded resource ('in an organisation'), and enumerates the returned fields. The plural 'projects' clearly separates it from get_project, so an agent can select it confidently.

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?

Gives a practical usage condition: omit org to use the default organisation. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_project or list_orgs, but the context is unambiguous and there are no misleading exclusions.

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