List projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-only confirmation, no pagination behavior, no default row_count, no indication of what happens when search_criteria is omitted, and no auth/permission requirements. For a listing tool with a rich nested parameter object, this is a complete gap.

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 words is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope statement or constraint to justify the brevity.

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 nested-object parameter with seven sub-fields, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It leaves pagination, sorting, field selection, and search semantics entirely unexplained.

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 0%, and the single parameter is a nested object containing row_count, sort_field, sort_order, start_index, fields_required, get_total_count, and search_criteria, none of which are documented anywhere. The description must compensate for this and provides zero parameter meaning.

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 'List projects.' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, adding no information beyond the identifier itself. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as list_tasks, list_changes, or list_requests, nor does it clarify scope (all projects vs. filtered). This is the textbook tautology case.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The description never mentions when to prefer list_projects over get_project (single fetch) or how it relates to the create/update/delete_project siblings. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is offered.

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