list_group_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting, filtering behavior). It merely repeats the verb 'list', missing an opportunity to clarify what happens during listing.

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 with no unnecessary words, making it efficient. However, it may be too minimal, bordering on under-specification.

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 has 18 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's role within the group context or key behaviors, leaving agents without sufficient context.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since no additional value is provided.

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 'List projects in a group' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('projects in a group'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_projects' (all projects) and 'get_project' (single 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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. While the use case is implied (listing group-specific projects), no exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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