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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds context beyond that by specifying the output fields (name and status) and the fact that the output serves as the source of project_name for other tools. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not elaborate on potential limitations or edge cases, which are minor for a read-only list operation.

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 sentences with no redundant words. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by essential usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 parameterless list tool, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and how its output feeds other tools. Since an output schema is present, the return format does not need to be described. There are no missing details an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The schema description coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details because none exist, and it correctly focuses on the output usage rather than inputs.

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 clearly states a specific action (list) on a specific resource (projects) and specifies the returned attributes (name and status). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that other project tools rely on the project_name from this list, so an agent can immediately understand its role.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool ('when the user refers to an app that already exists') and explains how it relates to sibling tools ('The other project tools take the exact project_name from this list'). This gives clear guidance on when to invoke it versus alternatives, leaving nothing to inference.

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