list_group_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of pagination behavior, no note on whether shared/inherited projects appear, no auth or permission requirements, and no indication of how include_subgroups changes results. "List" implies a safe read, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is tight, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

For a six-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits pagination semantics, return shape expectations, and subgroup/visibility interaction. An agent has the minimum needed to attempt a call but not enough to call it confidently or interpret results.

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 67%, with page and per_page carrying no descriptions at all, and the description adds no parameter meaning of its own — it never explains filtering, search, or visibility behavior. The schema does document group_id, search, visibility, and include_subgroups, so some of the work is done, but the description contributes nothing to close the remaining gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource ("List all projects and repositories") and scopes it to a specific group or organization, so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like list_my_projects, search_repositories, or get_group, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The only implied guidance is that a group context is needed, which leaves the agent to figure out on its own when to prefer this over list_my_projects or search_repositories.

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