list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that results are paginated via a "next_offset" field that terminates at null. It omits return shape, default page size, whether the list is filtered by permission, and ordering, and the referenced "next_offset" does not correspond to any parameter in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the purpose statement is front-loaded before the pagination note. Brevity is undercut slightly by the undefined "next_offset" reference, which adds words without adding clarity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin to let an agent call it confidently. It should at minimum explain limit/offset semantics, the default page size, and what a returned project entry contains.

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%, so both parameters (limit, offset) are undocumented anywhere, and the description does not explain either one. Worse, it points the agent at "next_offset" rather than the declared "offset" parameter, creating ambiguity about how to advance pages.

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?

"Find shared projects" names the resource but uses a vague verb and never defines what "shared" means, so an agent cannot tell whether this lists the caller's projects, projects shared with them, or team-wide projects. It also does not differentiate itself from siblings such as create_project or get_context.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_context or create_project, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only guidance is pagination mechanics, which is not usage selection.

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