list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional context is lower. The description adds that only 'accessible' projects are returned and implies no filtering, but it does not describe pagination, sorting, or any side effects. This modest addition earns a 3.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but is not verbose. Every word earns its place, though the structure could be improved by integrating parameter details into the main text rather than duplicating them.

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 a simple tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it lacks any detail on the instance parameter format or any note about potential pagination/limits. It is adequate but leaves room for an agent to misunderstand how to specify the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'instance'. It only says 'instance: YouTrack instance (optional)', which adds 'YouTrack' but still does not explain what format the value should take (e.g., URL, name, or ID) or how it affects the results. The schema already shows default '' and non-required, so 'optional' is redundant.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'all accessible YouTrack projects', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tags and list_templates by explicitly targeting projects, and the scope 'all accessible' clarifies what will be returned.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing list_projects over other listing or search tools. It only states the purpose and the optional instance parameter, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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