list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It communicates a read-only list operation by using the verb 'list' and specifies scope ('all projects in the organization'), but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, authentication requirements, or return format. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the essential information about the tool's function.

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 with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core function but does not describe the return format or possible limitations (e.g., pagination, archived projects). For a basic list operation, this is minimally complete but leaves some uncertainty about the response structure.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively complete. Per baseline, 0 params merit a score of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist.

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'), the resource ('projects'), and the scope ('all in the organization'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on issues/events rather than projects.

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 for retrieving projects but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling names indicate a focus on issues, no direct guidance or when-not-to-use is provided, leaving the context clear but without explicit exclusions.

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