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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, yet the description still adds real behavior: sort order ("most recently updated first") and a hard result cap ("at most 200"). It also discloses the returned fields including the null-when-unset aspectRatio. It doesn't say whether the 200 cap is accompanied by any paging or truncation signal, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, none wasted, and front-loaded with the verb and scope before the returned fields and the projectId hand-off instruction. The ordering detail and the practical instruction about passing projectId both earn their 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so explicitly: projectId, title, role, aspectRatio (with null semantics) and updatedAt in ISO 8601. Combined with ordering, the 200 cap and the permission note on roles, an agent has everything needed to call and use this tool.

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?

Zero input parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax left for the description to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the ScreenWeaver projects") plus the exact scope ("you can open (owned or shared with you)"), which cleanly separates it from sibling list tools like list_entities, list_shots and list_organisations. An agent can tell what it returns and who it returns it for without opening anything.

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?

Gives strong positive guidance: this is the entry point whose projectId "pass every other tool" requires, which tells the agent to call it first. It also explains the role rule ("only owners and editors can change a project"), implicitly steering the agent away from edit attempts as a viewer. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative exists, so it stops short of a 5.

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