list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description reinforces that with 'This is read-only', which is somewhat redundant. However, it adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the return content ('open/done thread counts') and the intended use case. It does not detail ordering, pagination, or error behavior, but given the read-only safety is already covered, this is a minor gap.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('List registered Hub projects...'), followed by usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only list tool: it states what it does, when to use it, and which sibling tools are appropriate for other operations. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description could mention the limit parameter or ordering, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of schema constraints.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. As the only parameter, 'limit' is self-explanatory given its integer type, default (100), min (1), and max (500). The schema provides sufficient constraints, but the description's lack of any mention means it does not compensate for the low coverage. Since the parameter is straightforward, this is acceptable but not ideal.

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 a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('registered Hub projects'), and the output content ('open/done thread counts'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming 'resolve_project' and 'upsert_project' as the alternatives when a project needs resolution or change, so an agent can easily select the right tool without ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use for project discovery or navigation') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance by stating it is read-only and directing the agent to 'resolve_project or upsert_project' for modification tasks. This leaves no ambiguity about situational appropriateness.

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