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 burden. 'List all tracked projects' clearly conveys a read-only enumeration, and the status filter is transparent. It does not mention default behavior when status is omitted, ordering, pagination, or return shape, but there are no hidden side effects to disclose.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated immediately after, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 one-optional-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential behavior and filter options. It does not specify return fields or what happens when no status is supplied, but the tool name and action make the general return type obvious.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'status' parameter, including a description and enum values. The tool description repeats those same enum values ('active, paused, completed, or archived') without adding new semantic meaning or usage nuance.

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 ('all tracked projects'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_project, list_tasks, and get_project_status by the noun 'projects', though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 when to use it: when you need a list of projects, optionally filtered by status. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related tools like get_project_status or get_project_summary.

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