list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The wording 'browsing' and 'overview' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it disclose permissions, pagination, or return format. It adds moderate context but leaves some behavioral details implicit.

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 uses a bolded 'ESSENTIAL FOR' section and a bulleted 'WHEN TO USE' list, making it scannable and well-structured. However, there is some redundancy: 'This tool provides a comprehensive view of all projects in the system' and 'Get an overview of all tracked work' say essentially the same thing, and 'browsing available projects' appears twice. Slightly more repetition than ideal for a 5.

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 a straightforward list-with-filters operation, and the description adequately covers the main use cases and the concept of filtering. With no output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what fields are returned or any prerequisites, but for its simplicity, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 schema has 100% coverage with each parameter (status, workspace_base, include_archived) having a clear description. The tool description only mentions 'optional filtering' without detailing these parameters, so it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 begins with 'List all CoordMCP projects' which states a specific action (list) and a specific resource (CoordMCP projects). It also mentions 'optional filtering' and lists concrete use cases like 'find projects under a specific directory' and 'check which projects are active vs archived', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_project or create_project.

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?

A 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists several scenarios, such as seeing all projects or checking statuses, and the 'ESSENTIAL FOR' line adds context about browsing before selecting work. However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools like get_project_info for single-project details, so it falls short of a 5.

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