List Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by mentioning authentication requirements for private projects, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or response format, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a crucial authentication note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (list operation with pagination and authentication), the description is minimally adequate. Annotations cover safety, but there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values or error handling. It provides basic context but lacks depth for a full understanding of tool behavior.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'first' or 'after' further). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 action ('List') and resource ('projects'), specifying they are 'accessible to the user'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_project' (singular) and 'search_projects' (search vs. list), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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 implies usage context by noting authentication is required for private projects, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_projects' or 'get_group_projects'. It provides some guidance on prerequisites but lacks clear when/when-not directives or named sibling comparisons.

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