List projects

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds real substance on top: results are auth-scoped to the token, timestamps carry the project's time-zone offset with a stated UTC fallback when the Node lacks the zone. That fallback is a behavioral quirk an agent could never infer from the schema.

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 core statement is front-loaded and the prerequisite rule follows logically. The closing ISO-8601 offset example is useful but verbose, making the third sentence heavier than it needs to be for what is essentially 'times are local with offset, or UTC if unknown'.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so field by field, including timestamp format and the UTC fallback. It leaves minor gaps such as result ordering and magnitude, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and there is no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 and resource plus the scope restriction ('the Pyxis projects this token can read') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains. It also implicitly separates itself from the analytics siblings by declaring that 'every other tool takes a project id from here', so an agent knows this is the discovery root rather than another report.

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?

Gives an explicit call-order rule: take the project id from this list, and use dates no later than the project's today. That is strong prerequisite guidance, though it never states when this tool should not be used or what to do with zero visible projects.

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