list_my_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds two meaningful qualifiers ('active' and 'where time can be logged'), which go beyond a simple 'list projects'. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits, leaving some gaps.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains its purpose and scope. It could potentially mention pagination or the relationship between projects and tasks, but these are not essential for a basic 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, so the schema provides no information. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details. It clearly explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('active projects and tasks') with a specific purpose ('where time can be logged'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_absence_types (absence types) and get_time_entries (time entries) by scoping to projects/tasks eligible for time logging.

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 clear usage context: when you need to see available projects/tasks for logging time. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is evident from the phrasing and sibling names.

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