list_org_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, but it only states the core operation. It does not mention pagination behavior, response structure, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The documentation link is helpful but not part of the description's own behavioral detail.

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 clear sentence with a documentation link. It avoids fluff and redundancy, earning its place for stating the purpose. However, it is under-specified, so while it is concise, it could use more substance without losing efficiency.

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 relatively simple list operation, but the description lacks important context such as interaction with ProjectsV2, pagination behavior, and how it fits into the broader family of org project tools. It does not explain what the response contains or any limitations, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 only 33% (org has a description, page and per_page do not). The description does not compensate for this gap; it says nothing about pagination parameters, their defaults, or how they affect results. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the low coverage requires more elaboration.

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 action (List), the resource (GitHub ProjectsV2 projects), and the scope (organization). This distinguishes it from related project tools like get_org_project, which fetches one project, and list_org_project_items, which lists items within a 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_org_project or list_org_project_items. There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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