get_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool supports pagination, which is useful behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention other traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like, leaving significant gaps.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds key behavioral context (pagination). It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (list retrieval with pagination), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on permissions, output format, error handling, or how it differs from siblings, making it only minimally adequate.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Supports pagination,' which implies the use of 'limit' and 'offset' parameters, adding some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain what 'accessible' means or provide details on parameter usage beyond this hint, so it partially compensates but not fully.

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 ('Get list') and resource ('accessible projects from Lychee Redmine'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' (singular) or 'search_issues', which might retrieve similar data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project' (for a single project) or 'search_issues' (which might involve projects). It mentions pagination support, which hints at usage for large datasets, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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