list-projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. While 'configured' and 'available to this MCP server' hints at access scope, it fails to clarify read-only safety, pagination behavior, error cases, or the return structure.

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, efficient sentence of nine words with no redundancy. It leads with the action verb and immediately identifies the resource, placing critical information first.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool, the description adequately identifies what is returned (projects), but lacks explanation of how the results relate to sibling operations or what 'configured' implies for the integration setup. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per the scoring rubric. The input schema is trivially complete with no additional semantic context required from the description.

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 verb (List) and resource (configured Rollbar projects) with scope limitation ('available to this MCP server'). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'list-items' by targeting 'projects' rather than 'items', though explicit contrast would strengthen this.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that this is a prerequisite discovery tool likely needed before calling project-specific siblings like 'list-items' or 'get-deployments'.

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