aap_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond that by specifying the return format (JSON string with count and project list) and the exact fields per entry (id, name, scm_type, scm_url, status, last_updated), while also clarifying that projects are SCM-backed playbook repositories.

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 compact and well-structured: a single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by concise Args and Returns blocks. Every sentence contributes information (purpose, input grouping, output format), with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Combined with the readOnly/destructive annotations and the existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter grouping, and return structure. It could be more explicit about pagination behavior (e.g., returns one page at a time vs. all projects), though the page/page_size parameters in the schema make this largely inferable.

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 0% at the top level, and the description only groups the params as 'Pagination and filter options' without detailing individual parameters. The schema itself provides descriptions for search and scm_type, but page and page_size lack explanations, and the tool description does not compensate for these gaps.

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 opens with 'List AAP projects (SCM-backed playbook repositories)', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly conveys the operation. The parenthetical adds scope by defining what an AAP project is, and the 'List' verb distinguishes this from sibling tools like aap_get_project, aap_create_project, aap_sync_project, and aap_delete_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?

The usage is implied by the verb 'List' and the pagination/filter parameters, which suggest enumeration and browsing scenarios. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus aap_get_project for a single project or aap_list_organizations for other resources; no alternatives are named and no exclusion criteria are provided.

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