list_projects

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It establishes that this is a read operation scoped to the current user, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether public projects are included in 'accessible', or any interaction between filters like search and search_namespaces — behaviors an agent would want to know before calling.

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 six-word sentence with no filler — verb, resource, and scope are all front-loaded and every word earns its place. It is appropriately compact for a list operation, though it is on the sparse side for a tool with 14 parameters; that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness defect.

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 tool with 14 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It never defines the meaning of 'accessible' (membership-only vs. including public projects), does not surface default per_page=20 and max=100 pagination limits, and leaves filter interactions unexplained, forcing an agent to infer calling context from parameter names.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies; all 14 parameters are already documented with descriptions and enums. The description's 'accessible by the current user' framing loosely aligns with the owned and membership filters but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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'), a resource ('projects'), and a scope qualifier ('accessible by the current user'), which gives an agent a clear sense of what the tool does. The scope qualifier implicitly differentiates it from siblings like search_repositories and list_group_projects, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_group_projects for group-scoped listings, my_issues for user-centric views, or search_repositories for cross-repository search, so an agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the tool name and the sibling list.

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