list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It provides a useful detail about projects having their own status/task-type sets, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, or return format. This is adequate for a simple list operation.

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 two sentences plus an example, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource in the first sentence, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a no-parameter list tool, the description covers the core functionality and even adds a data-model insight (each project's own status/task-type sets). It does not specify return fields, but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable. The sibling list provides additional context.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; it confirms the tool takes no input and focuses purely on listing.

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 tool lists 'task projects/pipelines for the workspace', using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool by noting each project has its own status set and task-type set, setting it apart from sibling tools like list_pipelines.

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 example 'Show me my projects' implies when to use the tool, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like list_pipelines or provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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