list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the default ordering and lack of sort, but does not explain what happens when no status filter is provided (does it return all projects? open by default?). It also does not mention pagination behavior or limits explicitly, though the schema provides page and perPage parameters.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and efficiently directs to the alternative tool for more complex queries. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 that this is a list tool with pagination and a sibling filter tool, the description covers purpose, when to use alternatives, and a key behavioral trait (default order, no sort). However, it does not specify the default behavior when no status is provided, nor does it mention that results are paginated or the maximum perPage from the schema. Overall, fairly complete for a simple list tool but with minor gaps.

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 low at 25% (only 'embed' has a description). The description adds context for the 'status' parameter ('optionally filtered by status'), but does not elaborate on 'page', 'perPage', or 'embed' beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate more, but it fails to adequately explain the remaining parameters.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'projects (cases) in Capsule CRM', and specifies optional filtering by status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'filter_projects' by noting that this tool returns results in default order without sort support, while the alternative is for structured queries.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus the alternative: for a simple list with default order, use list_projects; for structured queries like 'most recent project' or filtering by tags, use filter_projects instead. It also clarifies that no sort parameter is supported, giving clear guidance on limitations.

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