everhour_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it is a list operation, which implies a non-destructive read, but it does not mention pagination behavior (page/limit parameters) or what happens if no filters are applied. It adds some value but leaves room for more transparency.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 low complexity (five optional parameters, no required ones, no output schema), the description and schema together provide sufficient context. It mentions the core purpose and filters, though it could benefit from noting default pagination limits. Still, the schema covers the parameters, so it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description's mention of 'filtering by status, client, and search query' maps to schema parameters (status, client, query) but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'projects from Everhour' and mentions filtering capabilities, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like everhour_get_project (single project) and everhour_list_tasks (different resource). It is concise and unambiguous.

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 clear context: use this tool to list projects, with optional filters for status, client, and search query. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for a single project use get_project), but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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