list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered. The description adds the access-scoping behavior (results limited to what the current user can see), but says nothing about pagination defaults, result volume, or the fact that the default response is full, potentially large JSON.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the alternative redirection. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

For a 17-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers only the core purpose and the get-vs-list split. Subtle knobs like summary vs simple vs jmespath, and paging via page/per_page, are left entirely to the schema; adequate because of full schema coverage, but thin for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so every one of the 17 parameters already carries its own description and enums. The description adds no meaning about the filters (owned, membership, visibility, min_access_level) or the interaction between summary, simple, and jmespath, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List projects") and a scope ("accessible by the current user"), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings. The second sentence routes away from it for single-resource lookups, though it says "the matching get tool" rather than naming get_project, so differentiation is slightly indirect.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use (enumerating accessible projects) and an explicit when-not (a single known resource should use the corresponding get tool). It does not address the overlap with other search-style siblings such as search_repositories or list_project_members, nor does it note when filters should be preferred over client-side filtering.

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