list_my_projects

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful scope semantics (membership/ownership/starring are unioned), which is real context, but it omits pagination behavior, the fact that membership defaults to true (so the default call is NOT the broad list implied by the description), and any auth requirements.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler and the scope constraint front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there is room for a brief second clause on defaults.

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 10-parameter tool with 5 required params, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is thin. The important defaults (membership=true, per_page=20, sort=desc, order_by=last_activity_at) and the resulting default behavior are never surfaced.

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 60%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to the membership/owned/starred parameters by framing them as alternative sources of projects, but it adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond the schema.

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?

Clear verb (List) and resource (projects) with an explicit user-scope: projects the authenticated user participates in, owns, or has starred. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like list_group_projects, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or prerequisites are given, and no sibling is named. An agent cannot tell from the description when to prefer this over list_group_projects, search_repositories, or get_project.

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