list_projects

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

With readOnlyHint true, the safety profile is already provided. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the 50-items-per-page limit and the instruction to check the returned total before concluding a project does not exist. This goes beyond the annotations in a meaningful way.

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 sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical pagination caveat follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with three optional, well-described parameters, the description covers the main pitfall (assuming empty results mean absence). It stops short of detailing the exact response shape, but the total is referenced and no output schema is required.

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 baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter understanding by explaining the practical effect of page and limit: organizations with more than 50 projects require page 2+, tying the parameters to the pagination behavior.

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 'List projects in an organization' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous among siblings like list_organizations and list_boards, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself.

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 gives the context for using the tool (listing projects) and includes a practical caution about pagination, but it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives. The pagination note is more about result handling than tool selection.

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