List Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotation: the tool depends on prior state set by set_context, meaning an agent must sequence calls correctly. This is meaningful context that the annotation alone would not convey.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first delivers the purpose and scope, the second delivers the critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place and the most essential information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with two fully documented optional parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the key operational context: the set_context dependency and the org-scoped semantics. Minor gaps remain — no hint about response shape and no failure-mode note for when context is missing — but these are not critical for a simple list call.

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 description coverage is 100%: both skip and take are fully documented with defaults (0 and 50) and take even states a max of 100. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it correctly rests at the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('all projects'), and scope ('in the active organization'), which clearly separates it from org-scoped listing versus the team-scoped sibling list_team_projects and the single-item get_project. The word 'all' reinforces the bulk-listing nature of the call.

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?

Provides a clear and actionable prerequisite: organization context must be established via set_context before invoking. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the full when/when-not guidance, but the precondition is concrete and useful.

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