list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It correctly implies a read-only operation (list) and specifies the data scope (user's own projects). However, it does not mention pagination, error scenarios, or whether the list includes all boards or only active ones. The simplicity of the tool (no parameters) makes the transparency adequate but not exhaustive.

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 of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. Every word carries meaning; there is no redundancy or filler. It is maximally concise.

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 tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the primary action and scope. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., fields included, pagination behavior), which would help an agent interpret results. Given the lack of an output schema, a slightly richer description (like 'returns project id and title') would improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter information. Following the baseline guideline of 4 for 0-parameter tools, this score 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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (GitHub Projects v2 boards), and the scope (owned by the authenticated user). This verb+resource+scope pattern distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project or list_activities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_activities for project items). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool should be avoided. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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