list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't describe what 'list' entails - whether it returns all projects, is paginated, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with a clear two-part structure: a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The parameter section uses bullet-like formatting that's easy to parse. Every sentence adds value, though the initial statement could be slightly more specific about what 'list' entails.

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's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks information about output format, authentication requirements, error conditions, or typical use cases. For a list operation with filtering, more context would be helpful.

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?

The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains both parameters clearly: 'client_id' filters by client ID, and 'is_active' with specific guidance about passing true/false values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and provides necessary semantic context for both parameters.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_project_details' by indicating this returns a list rather than details of a single project. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_clients' or 'list_tasks' beyond the resource name.

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 doesn't mention when to choose 'list_projects' over 'get_project_details' for detailed information, or how it relates to other list tools like 'list_clients' or 'list_tasks'. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations.

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