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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that results are scoped to the signed-in user's available projects, which is not present in the annotations. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but the burden is lower given the annotations and output schema.

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 one compact sentence that states the action, the resource, and the scope with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes useful meaning.

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 zero-parameter list tool with a rich set of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential selection criteria and user scope. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing, and the sibling distinctions are clear enough from the resource term.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description has no need to explain parameter meanings, and the schema confirms no parameters are expected. This is appropriate and complete for a parameterless list operation.

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 the specific verb "List" with a clear resource, "video projects," and scopes it to "the signed-in user." It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like vivu_list_videos because it names a different resource type. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 conveys a clear context: list the projects available to the signed-in user. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to choose this over closely related siblings such as vivu_list_videos or vivu_search_videos, and it does not state any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly instructed.

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