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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: deterministic ordering (newest first), the exact fields surfaced (media, scene, composition, render counts), and that each project owns its media and per-brain chat history. It omits any pagination or result-cap behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then the search note, then project contents. Efficient overall, though the trailing '/editor page' and per-brain chat-history sentences are context that sits slightly off the invocation path.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what a listed project carries (media, scene, composition, render counts, chat history), so an agent can anticipate the response. Only pagination/truncation behavior beyond the limit parameter is left unstated.

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% (limit documents default 25 / max 100, search documents 'part of a project name'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only restates the search semantics and says nothing about limit behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 your persistent Switch Editor projects') and adds meaningful scope detail (newest first, returned counts, name-based search). It implicitly separates itself from get_editor_project by plurality, but never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with the singular fetch tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: browsing your own projects. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_editor_project, search_my_library, or find_editor_scenes, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The 'optional search' note describes parameter behavior rather than when to use the tool.

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