list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by stating results are scoped to projects the user can book time against, but it omits details about ordering, pagination, case sensitivity, or whether inactive/archived projects are included.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a terse Args block. No words are wasted, and all provided information is necessary for correct invocation.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose and both argument semantics adequately; the absence of pagination/ordering notes is a minor gap but not critical for this list operation.

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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: 'search' as an optional substring filter over project or customer names, and 'customer' as an optional name-or-id scope. This adds meaning that the bare schema entirely lacks.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), with the meaningful qualifier 'this user can book time against' that clarifies the permission scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_customers or list_timesheets, though it does not explicitly name them for contrast.

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 purpose sentence implies the tool is used to discover bookable projects before logging time, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. There are no exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the phrasing.

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