Projects Get All

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no context about pagination (cursor, limit), sorting (sortBy), or search (searchQuery) behavior, which are relevant despite the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters, so while concise, it misses opportunities to add value without significant length.

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 has four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain pagination, sorting, search, or how the response is structured, leaving the agent with inadequate information for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, cursor, sortBy, searchQuery). The description provides no meaning beyond the raw properties, leaving the agent without crucial details on how to use them.

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 clearly states that the tool lists projects in the organization, which is a specific verb-resource relationship. It is distinct from the sibling 'projects_get' which likely retrieves a single project, though it does not explicitly mention that distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention pagination, filtering, or that it returns all projects, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'projects_get' for retrieving a single project.

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