searchatlas_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions authentication ('for the authenticated user') which is useful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explicitly stated), rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with pagination/search parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and authentication context but lacks details about output format, error handling, and usage guidance that would be helpful for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 when 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('SearchAtlas projects') with scope ('for the authenticated user'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling list tools like searchatlas_list_artifacts or searchatlas_list_playbooks, which would require mentioning it's specifically about projects rather than other resource types.

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. The description doesn't mention when to use searchatlas_list_projects versus searchatlas_create_project or other project-related tools, nor does it provide context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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