list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only implies a read operation ('list'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'accessible' means. The description is too sparse to inform behavior beyond the basic action.

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 very concise (two short lines), but conciseness comes at the cost of substance. While it front-loads the core action, it omits any additional context that would justify its brevity. It is not wasteful, but it is also not sufficiently informative.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It states the core function, and the output schema likely covers return values. However, it lacks contextual completeness by not clarifying the scope of 'accessible' or interaction with the optional instance.

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 sole parameter 'instance' has a default of empty string, but the description adds no explanation of its purpose or format. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's semantics unclear.

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 the resource 'projects,' specifying 'all accessible YouTrack projects.' It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'get_project_fields' or 'list_templates' by focusing on listing projects, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other list-style tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without mentioning context, prerequisites, or cases where another tool might be preferred. This leaves the agent without direction.

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