wealthbox.projects.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List projects' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe response format, pagination behavior, rate limits, default ordering, or other side effects. This is minimal transparency beyond the verb.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action 'List projects,' and every element (the parameter list) is relevant and non-redundant. It is concise and well-structured.

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 a list tool with 8 query parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain that all parameters are optional, how pagination works, what the default response contains, or the behavior when no filters are applied. The agent must infer too much, making the tool description incomplete for effective use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It merely enumerates parameter names already present in the schema without explaining their meaning, value formats, or valid options. For example, 'due_after' could be a date filter but its format is unspecified, and 'status' has no permitted values. The description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'projects', clearly distinguishing it from singular 'get', mutation tools, and other resources. The query parameter list further confirms its role as a collection-fetching operation.

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 clear context that this tool fetches projects and lists filter options, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'get' or state exclusions. Usage guidance is implied by the 'list' verb rather than explicitly spelled out.

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