list_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 discloses that the response is grouped by personal vs each team, adding behavioral detail beyond a mere 'list'. It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but 'list' strongly implies a non-destructive 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('List ALL Railway projects') and then provides scope and grouping detail. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless list operation with no output schema, the description explains the main functionality and the grouping of results, which covers the essential return structure. However, it omits details like authentication requirements or error behaviors, though these are less critical for a read-only list tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema shows empty properties. The description does not discuss parameters, but none exist; the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'List ALL Railway projects — both personal and from all teams/orgs', specifying the verb, resource, and exact scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_personal_projects and list_team_projects by emphasizing it covers both.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving all projects across personal and team scopes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions (e.g., when to use list_personal_projects instead), so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not.

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