list_my_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the membership scope and ordering, but does not explicitly confirm the read-only nature or describe pagination behavior. However, for a simple list tool, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema). The description fully covers purpose, usage, and exclusions. It does not describe the return format, but that is a minor gap for a straightforward list operation.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but that is acceptable.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('projetos GitLab onde você é membro') plus ordering by recent activity. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating its use case (discovering project paths before get_mr/get_mr_diff) and by naming alternatives for MR search.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given ('Use para descobrir o path exato... antes de chamar get_mr'), along with a clear when-not-to-use and named alternatives ('Não use para procurar um MR específico — para isso use list_my_authored_mrs ou list_mrs_awaiting_my_review').

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