List Projects

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying that the list is scoped to the current user's permissions, which is behaviorally important. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and structured.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete for an agent to understand the tool's function. It could optionally mention the return format, but it is not essential. The description meets the needs for a simple 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. No parameter information is needed in the description. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not add extraneous detail.

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 'List all MantisBT projects accessible to the current API user,' which clearly identifies the action (list), resource (projects), and scope (user-accessible). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues or get_issues.

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 implies usage for listing projects visible to the user but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor any when-not scenarios. The context of 'accessible to the current API user' offers some contextual hint but no comparative guidance.

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