list_projects

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies a safe read via the word "List." It says nothing about result ordering, the default/maximum cap of 100, how the pagination cursor behaves, or what happens when the list is empty.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is not wasteful in structure, though it veers toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 an unannotated list tool with no output schema and a shared hierarchy of siblings, the description omits what a project is relative to workflows and databases and what a result record looks like. The scope an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret the response is missing.

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% – both `limit` (default 100) and `last_id` (pagination cursor) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about them, which is acceptable under the baseline rule but deserves no credit above 3.

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?

"List all workflow projects" gives a specific verb (List) and resource (workflow projects), so the basic operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from the nearby sibling list_workflows or list_databases — an agent cannot tell whether a "project" is a container above workflows or an alias for them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_workflows, and no stated preconditions despite an explicitly related sibling set. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration entry point for the project hierarchy.

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