list_projects

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the useful context that results are scoped to the configured token's visibility. It does not mention pagination behavior, but the schema documents page/per_page, so the added behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key scoping detail. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with an output schema present and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the tool's scope and purpose. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit pointer to get_project for single-project details, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters (page, query, per_page, is_archived) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 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 ('List'), a specific resource ('projects'), and a meaningful scope ('visible to the configured token'). It also signals that output includes numeric ids, which is useful for downstream calls. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project and list_tasks.

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?

The description implies usage: use this tool to enumerate projects available to the current token. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_project (single project lookup), create_project, or list_tasks, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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