list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that private projects are included and scope is limited to owned projects. It also mentions filtering capability. It does not explicitly mention read-only nature or pagination behavior, but those are less critical for a listing tool and partly evident from schema.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful. The first sentence states the core function, the second explains filtering, and the third differentiates from siblings. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, filtering, and alternatives. It does not describe return format or pagination defaults, but those are either conventional or encoded in parameter descriptions. Slight gap in not noting default page/size behavior, but overall adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by explaining the q parameter ('Supports filtering by title with the q parameter'), but does not go beyond the schema for page and size. Overall it reinforces rather than significantly augments schema semantics.

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 'List projects owned by the authenticated user, including private ones.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by clarifying ownership scope. It also names alternative tools for public and shared projects.

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 specifies when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To find public projects from other users, use search_projects. To list projects where you are a collaborator, use list_shared_projects.' This is clear, actionable guidance.

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