list_shared_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the scope (collaborator vs owner) and implies the need for authentication. While it does not mention rate limits or side effects, this is a read-only list operation and the description adequately conveys 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 concise, made of three short sentences that lead with the primary purpose, mention filtering, and then point to the alternative. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

The description is complete for a simple list tool: it states what is listed, that it supports title filtering, and directs to list_projects for owned projects. Pagination is already documented in the schema, and no output schema exists, so further return-value explanation is unnecessary.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for q, page, and size. The description adds 'filtering by title' which aligns with the q parameter, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 lists projects where the authenticated user is a collaborator (not the owner), using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_projects, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance by naming the alternative tool for owned projects: 'To list projects you own, use list_projects instead.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool vs. the alternative.

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