list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields but does not mention side effects, ordering, pagination, or any operational constraints. The reference to a format resource adds some context but does not cover these key behaviors.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary action and then list return fields. No redundant phrases; it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 relatively simple, and the description covers the main action and return content. However, it omits details like pagination, ordering, or error behavior, which could be relevant, especially since there is no output schema to fill those gaps. The pointer to a format guide helps but is not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100% for the single status parameter, which already includes a description and enum. The description's mention of 'optionally filtered by status' mirrors the schema without adding new semantic information, so the added value is minimal.

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 specific action (list all projects) and the optional filter (status), and indicates the returned fields (titles, slugs, status, description previews). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling get_project and search_projects by framing this as a broad list, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the sibling search_projects or get_project. The description only states the tool's function, not the conditions for preferring it over alternatives.

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