timeweb_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic function and gives no details about pagination, return format, ordering, or any side effects. For a list tool, the agent is left to infer behavior from the schema parameters.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and includes a contextual phrase ('for organizing resources') without wasting words.

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 a simple list operation with three optional params and no output schema. The description provides enough context for basic use, but it does not explain what a project is, what fields are returned, or how pagination behaves. Given the lack of an output schema, this gap prevents a higher score.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for limit, format, and offset, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), with scoping ('in the account') and purpose ('for organizing resources'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like timeweb_get_project (single project) and timeweb_create_project.

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 use for listing all projects but does not explicitly contrast with timeweb_get_project or other project-related tools. There is no 'use this for X, use that for Y' guidance, so the usage context is clear but not explicit.

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