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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minor behavioral context: the scope is limited to 'the user's projects' and the status filter. It does not disclose pagination, sorting, or other behavior, but for a simple read-only listing this is acceptable.

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 crisp sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the filter detail is delivered in a compact clause. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant information.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no required arguments, an output schema that documents return values, and annotations that cover side effects. The description covers the listing behavior and filter options, which is everything an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly. Nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by documenting the only parameter: `status` is optional and restricted to active | paused | done. This adds meaningful value beyond the raw string/null schema and fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 resource ('the user's projects'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also states the optional status filter, and the resource distinguishes it from list_skills, list_user_rules, and the project mutation 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 provides clear context: use this tool to list projects, optionally filtered by status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer when to call it. The absence of explicit exclusions keeps it below a 5.

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