List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the ownership scope and the exact fields returned, but it does not mention pagination, network interaction, or any other behavioral caveats. This is adequate given the low-risk read-only nature, but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the action and resource, then compacts all relevant output details into a short list. There is no repetition of the title or schema, and every phrase earns its place.

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, zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it states the resource, the ownership scope, and the returned fields. The annotations cover safety, and no output schema exists to add more. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema, which already covers the parameter space completely. The description's mention of output fields is more relevant to behavior than to parameter semantics, so the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Patchlog projects'), and further narrows scope to those owned by the API token. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from the sibling entry-management tools.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: to retrieve the projects associated with the API token. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, the sibling tools are all entry-focused, so the intended context is clear enough without excluding edge cases.

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