list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the API paginates at 50 per page and callers must check the returned total to avoid false negatives. This is valuable context for correct result interpretation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional pagination caveat is directly relevant to successful use. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only list operation, the description covers the key invocation concern: pagination and the need to verify totals. There is no output schema, but the description still communicates enough about what the caller must handle. It could mention the return format briefly, but the absence is minor given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the default page limit of 50 has real consequences: an organization with more projects requires pagination. This enriches the page and limit parameter semantics without repeating schema content.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List projects in an organization.' This clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_boards or list_organizations. The resource naming is enough for an agent to understand the basic purpose.

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 gives clear context: this tool lists projects at the organization level, so an agent can infer when to call it over organization- or board-level alternatives. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tool names, but the page-size guidance provides practical usage context.

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