List projects

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

Annotations already convey that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: projects are scoped to organization keys, and each project belongs to a customer. This helps the agent understand access boundaries, though it doesn't mention result ordering or pagination behavior.

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 short and free of filler, with the key conceptual context packed into two sentences. It is not a full sentence and could be clearer, but it earns its place by defining the resource and scope without repetition.

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?

This is a simple optional-filter list tool with strong annotations and a fairly descriptive schema. The description supplies domain context and org scoping, but because there is no output schema and no usage guidance, the agent is left to infer the exact return shape and when this endpoint is preferable to sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. limit, cursor, and externalId are documented in the schema, and status is self-explanatory via its enum, but the description itself contributes nothing about how parameters affect the 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 tool name and title clearly state the verb and resource: list projects. The description adds useful context about what a project is — one per customer with its own numbers, keys, webhooks and usage — while the phrase 'Organization keys only' clarifies the scope. It does not explicitly say 'returns all projects' but the intent is clear.

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 gives no guidance about when to use list_projects versus get_project or when to use filters like status or externalId. It provides background context but no usage direction or exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate circumstances.

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