list_personal_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries some burden. 'List' indicates a read-only operation, and 'only your personal' conveys ownership scope, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., authentication, rate limits, or what constitutes 'personal') are disclosed. It is not misleading but minimal.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys its purpose and scope. It could elaborate on the exact meaning of 'personal' versus team projects, but the sibling context and the word 'only' provide sufficient clarity.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, which applies here.

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's action ('List') and resource ('your personal Railway projects'), and the word 'only' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_team_projects and list_projects. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'only your personal' implies this tool is for personal projects, not team projects, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, which would warrant a 5.

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