list_user_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that only public projects are returned, which is a key behavioral trait beyond the schema (which does not indicate visibility). However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, auth needs, or error cases, so it's not fully transparent, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second adds a crucial visibility constraint and points to an alternative. No wasted words.

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 3 self-descriptive parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and usage distinction. It doesn't describe the return format, but this is a straightforward list operation and the lack of output schema is mitigated by the clear purpose and parameter docs. Slightly more detail about pagination or response structure would make it fully complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters (userAlias, page, size). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('public projects'), and a scope ('owned by a specific GitFlic user'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling list_projects by noting it only returns public 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 gives explicit when-to-use context: this tool is for listing public projects of a specific user. It also names the alternative (list_projects) for listing your own projects including private ones, providing clear guidance on when not to use it.

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