vela_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the API endpoint and use case, not additional behavioral traits like pagination limits or result ordering. Since annotations carry the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences, perfectly sized and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value, including the API reference and usage context.

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 simple read-only list tool with pagination params and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the use case and provides the API endpoint, while annotations and schema cover safety and parameters. It does not explain pagination behavior, but that is already in the schema.

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 100%; all three parameters (page, page_size, response_format) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 tool lists projects in the platform with a specific verb and resource, and adds the use case 'before creating an application to confirm available projects.' This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools that list other entities like users or applications.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool before creating an application to confirm available projects. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, the use-case guidance is sufficient and directly tied to the tool's purpose.

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