list_projects

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully convey behavioral traits, but it only states the basic function. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the platform is invalid.

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, which is concise but lacks any structure or detail. It is minimal but not efficient in conveying necessary 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?

Despite the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations. It does not provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It fails to explain the valid values for 'platform', the format or purpose of 'filters', or the behavior of 'limit' (e.g., pagination).

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), resource (projects), and context (from a specified Git platform). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools that list other entities like issues or merge requests.

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 when to prefer it over listing projects from a different source or using filters. No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.

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