List Projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates the tool lists all projects and supports pagination, but does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or default pagination behavior. Annotations would have reduced the burden.

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 very concise (4 words) and front-loaded with the action. It could be slightly expanded to include non-obvious defaults or constraints, but remains efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at return format or default behavior. It fails to mention what fields are returned for each project, pagination defaults (e.g., default page size), or any limits. Sibling tools do not fully compensate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (page, size, sort). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'all projects' context, which is already implied. Baseline 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?

Description states 'List all projects with pagination', using a specific verb-resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'project_get_by_id' and 'project_find_by_name' which handle single project retrieval or search.

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?

Description implies usage for listing projects with pagination but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'project_find_by_name' or 'project_get_by_id'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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