list_party_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it filters to one party, returns the same shape as get_project, and accepts optional embed. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state function, describe use case and output shape, offer alternative and optional parameter. No wasted words.

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?

Missing documentation for pagination parameters (page, perPage) and the embed parameter discrepancy. However, it provides the output shape reference and alternative tool, which partially compensates for the lack of output schema.

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 has 3 parameters (partyId, page, perPage) with 0% coverage. The description does not explain any of these; instead it mentions an 'embed' parameter not present in the schema, which is misleading. The partyId is implied but not described.

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 tool lists projects linked to a given party, uses specific verbs ('List projects'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_party_opportunities by offering the alternative.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use this tool: 'to answer what cases is X involved in? without enumerating all projects.' Also names the alternative for opportunity-side queries: list_party_opportunities.

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